Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 September	18 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 17:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aedes canadensis

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

No citations and is orphaned. Also a very obscure animal which is hard to prove exists. BSOleader (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – inherently notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Below are some sources from Google Scholar. More sources are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep Notable as per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable" ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but we need to resolve or explain the taxonomic dispute per WP:NPOV. Ochlerotatus#Taxonomy seems to be a POV argument that Ochlerotatus is "accepted", but reading between the lines it's still hotly disputed whether it's a proper genus or a subgenus of Aedes; most recent sources for the species seem to refer to it as Aedes (Ochlerotatus) canadensis [1] [2] [3] [4] FourViolas (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Ochlerotatus canadensis, if I correctly understand the taxonomic issue. In any case, valid species under one of these two synonyms. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, I have also expanded the article a wee bit and will do some more work. Need to check if Ochlerotatus is a generally accepted species as most sources I have checked have the accepted generic name as Aedes.Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded further, reinforcing my Keep vote but I am also in favour of a move to Ochlerotatus canadensis.Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All species are notable. Also, the current title should be kept, as ITIS (a source for WP:INSECTS) has Aedes as the genus name. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; here's the link for reference. FourViolas (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Troakes

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

Clearly quite a busy actor over his career, but I can't see any major roles at all during his career. They have all been bit parts as far as I can see. Having many bit parts, however notable the TV shows, isn't a claim to notability. When the PROD was added this week I searched for any possible claims to meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR and couldn't find any (so I left the PROD alone). PROD has now been removed by ANOther, I think it's time to take this to AfD. Sionk (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the person to PROD the article, and seeing no improvements whatsover. The article would need sources to show WP:GNG and I have no reason to assume they are out there. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Soto

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR, only source is IMDB (three roles in short films and his own youtube series) and a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up anything significant Melcous (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find coverage or other evidence to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG at this time. gongshow talk 23:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He seems to have only played small roles in films that are mostly unheard of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)
Delete no evidence he meets the notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 20:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trabant Coffee and Chai

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

Short-lived former local business, no assertion of notability. Mentions in local news and blog are not significant coverage and do not differentiate this from other small businesses. Reywas92^Talk 08:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoka Coffee Roaster & Tea Company

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

Local coffee shop, notability is not asserted to explain why it is different from any other small business around the world. Source provided of local magazine with short blurbs of their favorite shops would not be significant coverage, even if Zoka were listed – subject is not even in it! Reywas92^Talk 07:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, though I could be persuaded to change to 'weak keep' if anyone can find anything else about Zoka. I agree the coffee shop review currently used as a citation doesn't mention Zoka. They are a long established coffee company, they were subject of an article in the Seattle Times, but this was entirely based on a rumour that Soka was in financial difficulty ...is this something the company would want to be notable for? There is one very good online article in the Puget Sound Business Journal (though some may consider that only 'local'). A review by the Coffee Chaser says the company have been "below the radar", which suggests to me they haven't sought publicity, leading me to think there may not be much pre-internet (despite the company having quite some longevity). Probably fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victrola Coffee Roasters

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

Local coffee shop, notability is not asserted. Sources are not significant independent coverage that focus on the topic to provide evidence of why this coffee shop is different from other local businesses around the world. Reywas92^Talk 07:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, though the company has quite a few mentions in local Seattle news sources, this probably isn't sufficient to meet WP:NCORP (which requires some wider coverage for businesses). Seattle is only a mid-sized city so I wouldn't consider Seattle news sources to be enough in themselves (even if I could see a substantive article). Maybe someone needs to take a look at the other businesses profiled in the Coffee in Seattle template. A sensible solution would be to redirect this article to Coffee in Seattle. Sionk (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wahaj Ali

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his IMDb profile says he only appeared in one TV programme [5]. i assume he may had minor roles in other programmes listed on this bio. second, there is not much coverage in RS. beware of namesakes in G'news. unless we have a RS confirming that he won the awards listed here, delete vote from me. --Saqib (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third re-list. Hopefully more people from Pakistan can comment; there isn't a strong consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - The subject may have been nominated for the awards but didn't win any. Also has passing mentions in RS: Gulf News & The News. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 20:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caffè Umbria

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

Local coffee shop with a few locations, but no notability is asserted in the article or sources. A local article covering the opening is not significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 07:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 07:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Yoon

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

Zero evidence of meeting notability standards DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 17:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, extensive coverage in reliable sources. I have added many to the article, including 20 paragraphs from the BBC ([6]). Antrocent (♫♬) 23:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is extensive coverage in reliable sources. I mean, the BBC has a whole article about her. I can't understand how the subject of the article isn't notable. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 13:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail, resulting in a directory-like listing for an unremarkable entreprenuer. The BBC story is an interview. I also note that Peach & Lily has been recently deleted, with the deleting admin noting that the creator was suspected of being part of a sock farm. We generally don't keep articles on entrepreneurs whose only claim to notability is being CEO of a nn company. The WP:Promo concerns also apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses the subject in detail:

Clift, Cortney (12 July 2017). "Alicia Yoon: The Korean Beauty Pioneer Combining Two Worlds Into One". Brit + Co.

Note that Peach & Lily was deleted via WP:PROD, which does not carry much weight as such a deletion can be overturned upon any request. Antrocent (♫♬) 03:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the brit.co source listed above is from Brit + Co, which is described as "a media company that inspires, educates, and entertains real women with a creative spirit through content, online classes, and creative products". For all we know, it's a promo piece that could have been placed there by the subject's publicists. I'd treat it as a WP:SPIP source. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources quoted already show Yoon has made an important mark as an entrepreneur. Google reveals numerous other secondary sources if these are needed.--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly think this should be kept, not least because of the extensive BBC article (which is not an interview). As others have said already, there are plenty of other reliable sources, some of which have been identified here. It's an obvious keep for me. Dysklyver 14:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with perspective of editing. If it is possible to expand this article with information from different websites in English, Greek etc. and describe activity of Yoon's company in the same article. The subject may be notable, because Alicia Yoon is featured in many sources, but the article clearly needs editing.Tarja Kardash (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Tung-Jung Hsieh

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources specifically about him - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not a run-of-the-mill businessman. President/CFO of New Oriental and audit Chairman of JD.com — these are super-famous companies in China.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - 89 Google News results, including Forbes, Financial Times, etc.

(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) - 369 Google News results

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

I'm moving the article to Louis Hsieh, that's his common name in English. Timmyshin (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Timmyshin. Bondegezou (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mass Appeal (media). MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contact High Project

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective Merge to Mass Appeal (media). While not notable on its own, there is a little bit of coverage in independent sources. Mass Appeal media already includes a list of projects that this would fit perfectly in. menaechmi (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC) (as the suggester, I would offer to do the merge if this AfD goes that direction) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even sure this deserves a mention in the parent mag. But wouldn't hurt. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the column were notable, there is no reason it would warrant a standalone article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eazy E & N.W.A. photographs by: Ithaka Darin Pappas

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article, created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of citations in the article but they are mostly irrelevant and don't represent sufficient depth of coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Bók

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

Actress with questionable notability, has only 3 roles, not sure how notable the roles are-but it seems like none of them were that notable. Wgolf (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her roles are not significant, so she does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. I don't really care. But her role in The Turin Horse is certainly notable. She's the female lead of the film that won both the Silver Bear and the FIPRESCI prize at the 2011 Berlin Film Festival. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to Santa Claus of the Future's identification of her role as a leading character The Turin Horse, which does appear to be a leading role in a notable film.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is clear consensus that this person is not notable enough for a standalone article, and the removal of most of the content on copyright/spam grounds argues against a merge. Hut 8.5 21:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heini Zachariassen

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

Biography of a software developer. Article is mostly a duplication of content that is already published in the article of a company he co-founded, Vivino. Subject is not notable as an individual, coverage is about the business, not the person. Tried to redirect, was reverted. Mduvekot (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The Forbes, CNN Money and Business Insider are all great citations, but not enough to give Heini Zachariassen personally notoriety. Has he done anything outside the Vivno business that would make him notable? Also as mentioned above the whole history section of the page is copy/paste from the Forbes article. I suggest there be a paragraph only on the Vivno Wikipedia page until such time as Zachariassen can pass notoriety on his own.Sgerbic (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't challenge the quality of the entry, Zachariassen notoriety goes beyond Vivino as he's regarded as one of Faroe Islands and Denmarks most known entrepreneurs, now living in San Fransisco. One source would be https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/280083 83.248.89.10 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Vivino. No coverage or apparent notability apart from articles covering the company he founded. The entrepreneur.com article mentioned above appears to draw mainly from Zachariassen's Vivino experience.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with merge. I didn't think it was necessary to retain this article, since practically all the information in the source is already present in the target, but a merge accomplishes the same thing as delete and redirect, but with the added benefit of preserving the edit history. Can someone please close this? I suspect it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Mduvekot (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not independently notable of Vivino; I'm generally not in favour of redirecting nn BLPs to a company, as the subject and the company might part ways in the future. The article is full of puffery about the subject's vision, etc. Created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Creative2world, that also recreated a highly promotional article Jared Sawyer Jr. The MO is highly suggestive of promo editing, which is on full display in the article on Zachariassen. The redirect had already been attempted, but was reverted by the article's creator, since my vote for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I was perhaps too eager to compromise, given the low number of participants in this discussion. Mduvekot (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Delete" on copyvio grounds; a good chunk of the article is copy/pasted from Forbes/sites; pls see: Copyvio report. BTW, Forbes/sites is user submitted content (essentially a blog, with no editorial oversight), so it does not count towards notability. So, "delete" all around. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've removed the copyvio, and also removed a lot of the spam. Once those two are gone, there is nothing worth merging. Also, I'll note that this article was likely created in violation of the terms of use: see edit filter 867, which the article creator has triggered on four separate articles. That filter is designed to catch likely commissioned works that are created perfectly in one edit by new users. Deletion as promotion per WP:NOTSPAM are justified on those grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. defaulting to keep. Promotional concerns can be cleaned up through editing. ansh 666 20:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Nocivelli

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

I am having difficulty finding more than passing mentions online. Article is definitely promotional. Fails GNG. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur seems a reasonable indication of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur is a low-level title, roughly equivalent to an MBE in the United Kingdom, which my father was, but it's two or three levels below anything that would grant automatic notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur is an indicator of notability, however this article needs to be de-PROMOed which would reduce it to a stub. It is unclear whether WP:GNG is met here. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 08:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Novarium (band)

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

Horribly-sourced article about non-notable band. Orange Mike | Talk 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The souring is poor to nonexistent, and my search could find little about it. Would be willing to reevaluate my opinion if sourcing was provided. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to find sources for some of the claims, but haven't found any depth of coverage of this band. Much of the article seems to appeal to their connections to others that are notable. WP:TOOSOON seems to apply. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Time/Your Time

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

This is an article devoted to a TV pilot – unaired TV pilots are generally not considered notable except under exceptional circumstances, as per WP:TVSHOW. Sourcing does not establish notability. NathanielTheBold (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON since it's been ordered but that's no guarantee it will be scheduled or aired. If/when it is confirmed for CBS's schedule, then it can be re-created without difficulty. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BALL as noted above. A pilot order doesn't guarantee or even assure a series pick up, many pilots are never seen by the public. This is premature. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 05:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salekur Rahman Rahe Bhanderi

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

Per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. All Primary sources and press release, even creator have included his own article link as reference. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 05:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Sources are about celebration not notability and they don't fulfill criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. -Intakhab (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was on the fence about this for a while, and I don't necessarily feel strongly that the article should be deleted. All things considered, though, I think that's the very close call that has to be made. As was mentioned above, the sources are mostly about modern day celebrations and a school - many of the English language sources don't even mention the subject of this article at all. This one belongs in the enormous pile of South Asian religious figures who are obscure even in the region but whose fans attempt to exploit Wikipedia as part of their social media campaigns. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - All of the sources that are best about Bhanderi seem to be closer to blogs or forum posts than truly reliable sources. Blogs can be RS, so if anyone who knows more about the authors of those posts can speak to their expertise, I'd be willing to reconsider. But as mentioned above, the authors seem to be primary interested in promotion, and thus not improve what doesn't look like a great case for reliability. There are also some more reliable sources that cover urs for Bhanderi. I don't think articles about urs alone should be the basis of an article, but can definitely help the article satisfy WP:V. But I don't think there is enough reliable source material on his life to pass WP:NPOV. An alternative possibility could be to focus on his legacy more, perhaps a good stub can be written on that basis, I'm not sure. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Seigal

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H-P Products

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

No in-depth coverage is available. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Greenbörg (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable vacuum company that makes no real claims of significance. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sole reference in the article, to the company's own site, cannot demonstrate notability, and my searches are finding nothing better than product announcements and reviews. Clearly a company going about its business, but lacking demonstrable encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gale (Loudspeaker)

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

Fails in-depth coverage criteria. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reasons as previous AfDs. --Michig (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails criteria for notability notably WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a company website and there's nothing in this article that provides any indication of notability. There were two previous AfDs and editors commented that references had been produced to meet the requirements for establishing notability. Having examined the provided references, my opinion is that the references fail as follows: This reference from "The Age" fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mention in-passing in relation to the range of speakers available from a Perth-based distributor. This review of the Gale Gold Monitor provides no details about the topic and fails as a reference for the company although it may count as a reference in an article about the speaker/monitor itself. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boofle

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

Not much coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no independent sources in the article. It is also overtly promotional, so fails WP:NOT. e.g. "Many Boofle owners are proud loyal collectors and take them everywhere." yuck. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bowers & Wilkins. Interested editors can use the page history for merging. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 17:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Bowers (loudspeaker builder)

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

Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you object to a redirect to Bowers & Wilkins? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bowers & Wilkins, he's already mentioned there and the company is his legacy. It would be possible to very selectively add a bit more background info about him to the company article. Sionk (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bowers & Wilkins or redirect if nobody can find anything to merge. The company is notable, the individual probably not. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HEMYCA

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

No in-depth coverage. Just promotional stuff. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and suffers from a severe lack of sourcing. Additional, the company is of limited notability and may qualify for WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks proper references. Mar11 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A promotionally-worded article on a company. The provided references are poor and searches are not finding better. A company going about its business, but no evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Octavius Black

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

Not notable. Article sources only discuss the companies he's worked for, not the man himself. Article is basically just a CV. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has not had any discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are acceptable, they're not only about his companies.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] There are significant coverage. The article can be re-written and it's not a reason for deletion. There don't seem to be any copyvio too. — Za wl 18:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movin' (Mohombi song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, Did not chart. MassiveYR ♠ 05:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although it didn't chart, it's the lead single from an album from an international artist, Mohombi popular throughout the world for hit Bumpy Ride. Giangkiefer

Your reason "Did not chart" is not enough. Giangkiefer

@Giangkiefer:Popularity has nothing to do with notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giangkiefer You think it's not notability ?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Xtreme Talent Search

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and links was added as page are continuing to be improved User talk:Thecrossingtvseries regarding User_talk:Thecrossingtvseries#Deletion_discussion_about_The_Xtreme_Talent_Search

(talk) 01:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references need to be independent reliable sources in order to establish the competition's notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have independent sources, but I assume we could add more. Would newspaper articles, press coverage and those be suitable? What else could we do?

No, the page's current sources are not independent or reliable. Yes, newspaper articles detailing the subject would definitely be reliable and you should added. Meatsgains (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 07:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite attempts to add sources since nomination, IMDb, LinkedIn, and the show's website aren't acceptable. — Wylie pedia 05:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Development of non-profit housing in the United States. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit housing

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

Article is a dictionary definition, probably only used in the USA. With multiple better known alternative terms to describe this topic if it were expanded. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we can simply redirect to Public housing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~public housing~~ Development of non-profit housing in the United States (per EMG). Shawn in Montreal is on to the correct solution, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect term to Development of non-profit housing in the United States, User:Shawn in Montreal, User:Carrite, User:Aguyintobooks, I think this is a better, more accurate, and more useful redirect target for this American Term-of-art and probable search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominated article has no US-specific content, even if the title is apparently the American term. But yes I suppose your suggestion is equally valid. I'd still prefer that it redirect to the top level article, which does contain a section on the US, but if you or someone else went ahead and non-admin closed this as a redirect to your preferred target I'd have no objection. This really doesn't require an Afd from what I can see -- certainly not one that's now been relisted twice and is 21 days old, all for a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 18:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminati 2K10

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

If we're going to be dropping a mixtape on Wikipedia, it needs reliable sources like any album, EP, or single would. A WP:BEFORE search shows us listings in online stores, hardly an indicator of passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Rosas

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

Does not meet musical notability. No independent references in articles, and no independent coverage found on Google search. Also contains non-neutral language; that can be dealt with, but there are still notability issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Japan (Aftershock album)

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

A live album that was not covered in any reliable sources. By the looks of it, none of the band's albums, or the group for that matter, are particularly notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a run of 500 CD-Rs, so would just have been snapped up by fans with little or no wider impact, and no coverage was found from a Google search. The title would not be an appropriate redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maragathakkaadu

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

unreleased movie with no significant pre-publicity; fails WP:NFILM Chetsford (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like many Indian films, the creator does not provide the name of the film in its actual original writing system, and a transliterator that I used failed to transliterate the name properly. Two pages of results on Google, with nothing there being of significance. Too soon, maybe, since it has not been released. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no content here, just the words "coming soon". This should not be on WP Mainspace. BSOleader (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as toosoon. BSOleader was looking at a revision of the article that had been blanked by the article creator, so it could possibly also go via {{Db-blanked}}. I undid the blanking, but whatever... DMacks (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Alvord

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Promotional article, part of a trio of articles created by this SPA on this company. See Funded Today and Zach Smith. MB 02:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree that subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, and that creator of article (User:Munozmayo) appears to be a WP:SPA to promote Funded Today and its leadership. See WP:PROMOTION. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Note that the other two closely related articles by this WP:SPA were deleted yesterday, for reasons identical to those proposed here, based on similar (but more thorough) discussions and consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funded Today‎ and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Smith. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Seems to me that there's so little discussion because it's not needed: this is now a fairly uncontroversial delete, uncontested, and consensus already exists. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC) rev. 12:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a little WP:TOOSOON, i.e., there is coverage, but not profiles and coverage is in minor publications and some of the linked articles are brief menitons. Nor are any of his companies bluelinked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Necro (EP)

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

Absolutely no significant coverage, at least not in my WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NALBUM & no sources present or found. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alternative 4#Discography. czar 04:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Brink (Alternative 4 album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. No coverage in reliable third-party sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only significant coverage I could find was this review from 'LOUD' magazine, which looks potentially a reliable source (although I'd never heard of it before). --Michig (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alternative 4. Aside from the one review found by Michig, search results only turn up album listings, release announcements, lyrics sites, etc. There's one or two other webzine- or blog-style reviews, but nothing that seems a WP:RS. No other evidence passes WP:NALBUMS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blood (Spanish band)

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

An article entirely sourced by WP:PRIMARY websites managed by the band. No particular improvements have been made and a WP:BEFORE search did not produce any significant secondary sources. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: every (non-RS) article I've found on the band so far suggests that they split up in 2013, so finding recent sources online to show their notability might prove tricky. Richard3120 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of meeting WP:NBAND and no SIGCOV to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, and as they have disbanded, there's unlikely to be any coverage in the future. Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 15:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Widespread Panic discography. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson, WY '96

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

Another archival album sourced entirely by Widespread Panic's own website. Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. This isn't a particularly well-known album nor is it a likely search term so redirecting the page is unnecessary. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Widespread Panic discography, which has some content about the album. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Boris

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

Not a particularly notable Youtube personality, with only 800,000 subscribers. Not many third-party sources, with references consisting of Youtube videos. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 14:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhangj1079: Have you done a Google search? [14] [15] [16] These are some which do not feature in the article yet, because I have been equally busy and lazy. For me, it's a Keep. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: My name is not dave (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Comment - WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is a discouraged argument in deletion discussions. You should instead say why the sources are reliable or significant, the ones you mention either appear to be unreliable, or not significant._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG, the number of subscribers is irrelevant, he could have 25 subs and still be notable, what matters is at least three independent third party sources. [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs)

Comment - False, that is an incorrect reading of the notability policy. It doesn't matter whether there are 3+ sources (although that is preferred as a "soft" guideline), but what really matters is whether they are reliable and significant secondary sources. The links you posted don't appear reliable. For example, the stated goal of "Slavorum" on their website is to promote Slavic culture, in other words it's more promotion than journalism. Calvert Journal does seem more journalistic but it's not actually a significant reference, only a passing mention. Et cetera._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Indeed some of the sources that Aguyintobooks has included are not inadequate. What do you think about the one in Estonian? Seems to be a notable Estonian web magazine; if you are using Google Chrome, then it's very easy to use Google Translate and find out what everything means in English. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave:If you mean this one then it doesn't seem significant. It essentially just says "check this video out, it's funny!" Not exactly enough to go on without original research._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: No, I mean this. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave:It doesn't allow me to access it, because I use Adblock. For the security of my computer I therefore cannot vouch for whether it's reliable. Even assuming it is, there'd have to be a couple more usable sources for it to be notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not convinced based on the provided sources or the ones in the article, that the article passes WP:GNG. One of them is an interview, which would be WP:PRIMARY and the others are either unreliable sources or short mentions. Maybe there might be enough if I was fluent in Russian, but absent of that the English sources are inadequate._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

none of the stuff in russian is any better, its all of a likeness, 'sensationalism' type news and passing mentions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the English and Estonian sources (and comments above describing the content of the Russian sources), there's not a GNG-pass in there yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am umimpressed with the reliability of the batch of sources above, some of which are repeated in this GNews search with a total of 21 hits. This person/channel appears to fail the WP:GNG. Delete. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has been a harsh lesson on notability, and more to the point, biased thinking to believe that some of these sources are reliable because I want to keep the article. Of course I do, that's completely to have and further my own interests. But no, there's the Estonian publik.delfi.ee source, which I stand by as being a good one, but not much else that's RS. Dear me, don't dig up crappy sources because you just want this article to be on Wikipedia. He's WP:TOOSOON. 81.106.34.193 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC) (User:My name is not dave, who has imposed an enforced wikibreak on his account 'til Oct. 21)[reply]
Delete This article contains sources which do not have significant coverage, but only brief mentions about the subject. There is also a problem that some of the sources are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable sources confirm the channel is popular but that's about it. There's nothing in the article suggesting this is a encyclopedic topic, and there's no significant coverage on which to base an article. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeff Schmidt (writer). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplined Minds

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

The book itself isn't notable; whatever press notice it had is tied to the circumstances of its writing, which are covered in the author's (stub) entry. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment from the nominator) This is a stub article that's stayed a stub article for ten years now. It's so obscure a book that apparently nobody even wants to discuss whether its entry should be deleted. Isn't it time to just put it out of its misery? TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with author's page, Jeff_Schmidt_(writer). Gpc62 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Merge makes a lot more sense, given that the material in the entry is almost all biographical anyway. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half is about the book, half about the firing controversy. So "almost all" is a bit of an exaggeration. It occurs to me I should have included a reason with my Keep/Merge opinion. My view is that this case boils down to a subjective judgement call -- the book is in a gray area, not obviously (objectively) on the "delete" side of the line by. And my subjective judgement is that a description of the book should be kept in the encyclopedia. The comment "nobody even wants to discuss whether its entry should be deleted" should be rephrased as "nobody among the tiny class of people who are active on wikipedia and who participate in AfD discussions wants to discuss whether its entry should be deleted." Gpc62 (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Program_and_System_Information_Protocol#What_PSIP_does. Whoever does the merge should decide how much material should be merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Programming Metadata Communication Protocol

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, but using AfD rather than prod as it's outwith my area of expertise. IT has beent agged for notability for 9 years, no convincing sources in article or that I found. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Power~enwiki (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section of Program_and_System_Information_Protocol#What_PSIP_does, where it is mentioned. This is an ATSC standard for North American digital TV. This is the standard for encoding program listings for PSIP. It appears in National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook, a standard reference. It is obviously verifiable and the standard itself, a consensus document among manufacturers, is a reliable, authoritative source for the standard. The content is verifiable, but there isn't a lot of outside commentary out there; it is part of the DTV plumbing. I don't know if there is enough out there to make for WP notability, but as an important part of PSIP, merging it in context in the PSIP article will preserve verifiable material per WP:PRESERVE and enrich the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Program and System Information Protocol § What PSIP does, which will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jyväskylä Sinfonia

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

Might fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sources may be available in written in the Finnish language. Has been tagged for improvement for 8 years. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Robotranslation of fi-wiki version lists claims against at least NMUSIC #3 (platinum albums) and #5 (multiple albums by major publishers), supported by Allmusic[24] and the Association of Finnish Symphony Orchestras[25]. Also appears to be known as the "Sinfonia Finlandia Jyväskylä"[26] and "Sinfonia Finlandia"[27] -- but not the "Finlandia Sinfonietta"[28]. Not much in the way of reviews readily visible from Google / GBooks, but at least some of their releases appear to have significant RS coverage[29][30]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not do articles on organizations built on their own websites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 September 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, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a number of sources. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a professional orchestra with a number of noted recordings. The article has been sufficiently improved in the course of this AfD for me to iVote as "Keep". An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable. No real argument put forward for deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is sufficiently sourced, and passes GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I rm the templates because this afd appears to settle issues of notability, and there are sufficient sources now ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete the article has emerged. Malinaccier (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ExtenZe

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

This seems to be a WP:PROMO article. There is a lack of reliable or independent sources that are not trivial. The contents of the article are (IMHO) not encyclopedic and have no other purpose than to advertise the product as "rarely having side effects" and listing the corporate endorsements it has. Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 11:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 September 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, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears that we're having a longer AfD discussion here. Wikipedia is not a product directory, and I don't think this is notable as a medical treatment. However, they have run a very large number of commercial advertisements in the United States. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some coverage of the brand, ex. [31], [32], [33], [http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/25/local/me-extenze25. through this is borderline and most coverage seems to be critical (which is good since it would lessen the ad-like outlook of this). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massari Arena

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

This sports arena does not seem to claim any notability in its own right. Event(s) happening in the arena don't give inherent notability. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Comment. This could all be merged with other articles mentioned in the article. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just the arena of a university, it also hosts boxing events and more. "Google news" shows lots of mentions, as the venue of events, and I think it is useful for Wikipedia to serve as reference for readers' "what is Massari Arena?" question. There probably are sources specifically about the construction of the building from around 1971 (pre-internet) and its reconstruction around 2006 but i am not going to go look for them; I think there's enough already to presume that GNG is met by sources not yet identified. --do ncr am 20:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i just added mention of Vincent Massari (1898-1976), the Italian immigrant after whom the arena is (apparently) named. Massari himself seems notable, see e.g. this brief source. --do ncr am 20:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant enough venue, hosting major events. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Freire-Garabal y Núñez

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

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

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

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

The whole article seems rather fishy. The "Society of the Knights of Elviña" has no google hits except for this article. The "Royal Dynastic House of Morris" in totally unknown to anyone except that it has a facebook page; it's probably some fictional country. Likewise nothing can be found at all about the "Royal Institute of Historical, Political and Art Studies Alfonso XIII" or the "Royal Institute of Fine Arts Narciso de Estenaga". The "International Journal of Doctrine and Jurisprudence" which is alleged to have published an article from this person does not seem to exist. The awards which he allegedly received seem made up (again, Knights of Elvina, "House of Morris", etc. --MF-W 13:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "House of Morris" is a royal Welsh family house, not a house from a country called "Morris". Also, keep in mind that not all sources on this person will necessarily be available via the Internet, and that other sources such as printed books not available electronically may cover him. The likely existence of such sources is often considered sufficient reason to retain such articles. But I am not !voting "Keep" here, and have not reviewed the existing sources nor made any effort to find new ones myself. Just pointing out a few things. KDS4444 ^(talk) 23:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The translation into English is clumsy to say the least, but the sources are credible and do corroborate much of this. It is necessary to search on the Spanish terms given in the sources – sure, there is no trace of an "International Journal of Doctrine and Jurisprudence", but Revista Internacional de Doctrina y Jurisprudencia is real enough, as are Instituto de Estudios Historicos Politicos de Ciencias y Artes Rey Alfonso XIII, Real Instituto Narciso de Estenaga and La Sociedad de Caballeros de Elviña. (Note: I see that sources were added after this deletion discussion was opened): Noyster (talk), 10:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I refuted the original argument, but let it go: Noyster (talk), 13:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still not enough to pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Gill (cox)

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

Possible hoax or attack page based on page creators edits. Bamyers99 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are extensive personal details here that are uncited. I don't believe that Gill meets the WP:GNG. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. No indication of notablity whatsoever and creator User:Garryhill36 has a username meticulously similar to Harry Gill. Ajf773 (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while there are 11th graders who are notable, it is almost always in acting or music, or truly notable sports competition, not rowing at the level he does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer Phillips

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of an actor and comedian, with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The references here are his IMDb profile, a tv.com profile which is not a reliable source for the same reason that IMDb isn't, and his own MySpace page. These are not reliable sources that can support notability, and actors do not get an automatic notability freebie just because roles happen to be listed — to qualify for an article, he needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to verify that he passes an NACTOR criterion. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 4 September 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, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cool that he got to accomplish his dream to be a firefighter but not notable..or sourced. Most of the article isn't sourced, and it's all unnotable. Myspace and imdb are not reliable sources. I can't imagine tv.com is either. Sorry Boomer. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. McCullough

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and cartoonist, with no properly sourced indication of passing WP:CREATIVE. This just states that he exists and then shares some of his opinions on things, and seven of the nine references are to either directories or individual samples of his own writing, while one more is to his own self-published Twitter feed — and the one that actually represents a reliable source isn't about him, but merely includes him giving a brief soundbite about a different subject. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article by being the bylined author of the sources, or by being glancingly namechecked as a soundbite giver in coverage of other things -- he has to be the subject of coverage written by other people, but he isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that I was considering bringing this here too and then thought that his work for the influential Washington Post as a conservative voice might qualify him for the first part of criterion #1 in WP:JOURNALIST. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If his work for the Washington Post were the subject of coverage in other publications, then sure. Not if the only reference given for it is a primary source directory of his writing for the Washington Post, though. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess I was wondering if the phrase "is regarded" can encompass more than "is discussed by." At any rate, certainly not opposing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's written for many influential publishers and has appeared regularly as a conservative commentator on Canadian TV for half a decade. He's also just launched 'TheCanadaGuide.com' which has been used a source on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaSlava (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly none of which is an automatic notability freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage about him. People get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the creator of media coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete with no prejudice against recreation at some future point, relatively early-career writer/political pundit. He does get written about by others, just not quite enough WP:SIGCOV at this point. Looks likely that it is just a little WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep. ansh 666 20:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Geoffrey Banks

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References consist primarily of single line mentions - lacks strong WP:SECONDARY support. Awards appear to be minor in nature. WP:TOOSOON applies. reddogsix (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, this is your opinion. If you google and see that his latest movie trailer has over 6 million views combined his rank on imdb is good his other latest film is in the cinema right now in multiple countrys. References are either whole reviews about him in movies or actual videos. Imdb is the movie data base i trust that alot more the redodgsix. If your not a horror fan fair enough but that doesnt mean your opinion is right. Just google his name and you can see he is worthy of being on here. This is a review from movie pilot one of the biggest film sites on the net.Russell Geoffrey Banks is the real star here, and his performance is one of the finest I've seen in a horror film as of late. https://moviepilot.com/p/whos-watching-oliver-horror-influences/4286920 Maybe the page might need to be altered certainly not deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezleblanc (talk • contribs)

Comment - You seem to be under the impression Wikipedia "notability" is related to "real-world" notability. This is not the case. The popularity of the movie trailer has no bearing on his WP:N - unfortunately notability is not inherited. The references are with very few exceptions single line mentions of him or reviews of the movies he is in. There is an issue with using IMDB, it can be added to without editorial supervision and unlike Wikipedia, is not subject to correction by the community. If one Googles the actor's name, using quotation marks to restrict the search, there are only 167 entries. Far from all are significant mentions of the search subject. The movie pilot article is a great start. If you can find more like this that would push the article to a keep. reddogsix (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If one Googles the actor's name, using quotation marks to restrict the search, there are only 167 entries. I think your google isn't working I have just googled using quotations Russell Geoffrey Banks and I can see he is on over 100.000 sites same on Yahoo most of them are on film and horror sites.The awards if you're a horror fan they are certainly of note, for example, horror hound weekend is one of the biggest horror conventions. IMDB is the standard for the film every credit has to be approved by the film in questions production.http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3086789/. You can go on to netflix and see a list of his movies. one the links was an interview with the actor http://horrorgeeklife.com/2017/06/18/whos-watching-oliver-interview/. in the cultured vultures review they said Russell Geoffrey Banks completely transforms himself into Oliver. A lesser actor might have turned this very comic character into a caricature. Oliver’s believability hinges on Banks’ performance, and he pulls it off. https://culturedvultures.com/whos-watching-oliver-2017-review/ this was on the magazines horrorfreak news a large horror website Co-writer Russell Geoffrey Banks delivers a wonderfully awkward and pained performance as the title character — which from the get-go had me thinking that he must have studied the work of Billy Bob Thornton as Carl in the Oscar-winning wonder, Sling Blade. With a similar hunched body language and a pronounced under-bite, Banks (who from all accounts appears to be a pretty handsome guy) transforms into a character who has been thrown down at every turn of his life. And once we learn his very dark history (via some drawings he shares with his unnamed cat — I loved this scene), the sympathy for this murderous and odd character begins to seep in. Eventually, you’ll come to like Oliver a great deal. And this is a credit to Banks. Oliver’s not always in a great mood and so Banks offers up several sides to Oliver — portraying this character’s many emotions (heartbreak, frustration, confusion) and all to equally great effect. http://horrorfreaknews.com/whos-watching-oliver-2017-review you will see the same type of interviews on all the biggest horror sites from the last few months.

http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/227293/whos-watching-oliver-2017/

https://rue-morgue.com/movie-review-whos-watching-oliver-proves-homicidal-mamas-boys-can-still-get-to-you/

http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com/movie/whos-watching-oliver

http://bloody-disgusting.com/indie/3442296/whos-watching-oliver-trailer-goes-little-mad/

http://gingernutsofhorror.com/film-reviews/whos-watching-oliver

In films such a pernicious cam2cam ghost house you can also see he is spoken about. Obviously not to the same degree because that film he wasn't winning awards for and getting the same attention. With the commercials he has done I just put the direct link to where you can see them.

Also, i would like to point out that the actor's star meter ranking is extremely good proving that he is on 1000s of sites and he is being clicked on by fans. this is from IMDB Could someone "rig" the ratings by visiting an IMDb page repeatedly?

No. IMDb.com has more than 250 million unique monthly visitors. The STARmeterTM, MOVIEmeterTM, and COMPANYmeterTM rankings are based on a cumulative total of more than 3 billion page views per month. Furthermore, we have designed the ranking algorithm so that the actions of one user (or small group of users) have a limited impact; we monitor STARmeterTM rankings for any possible fraudulent traffic generation, and the algorithm is periodically improved to detect and neutralize any attempts to 'stuff the ballot'.

Now as I said the article may need changing but certainly doesn't warrant deleting.I would be extremely grateful if someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia than myself would make the appropriate changes thank you.

Links to to reviews that talk very highly about Russell Geoffrey Banks

http://morbidlybeautiful.com/review-whos-watching-oliver/

http://horrorgeeklife.com/2017/06/13/whos-watching-oliver-2017-review/

http://www.monkeysfightingrobots.com/review-whos-watching-oliver-would-make-norman-bates-uncomfortable/

http://horrorfreaknews.com/whos-watching-oliver-2017-review

http://www.screamhorrormag.com/whos-watching-oliver-film-review/

http://beneaththeunderground.com/film-review-whos-watching-oliver-2017/

https://www.pophorror.com/whos-watching-oliver-2017-movie-review/

http://gingernutsofhorror.com/film-reviews/whos-watching-oliver

http://bloody-disgusting.com/indie/3442296/whos-watching-oliver-trailer-goes-little-mad/

Comment - Google - Go to the last page that has entries for "Russell Geoffrey Banks", the number at the bottom it is significantly less than 100K - 100, maybe 200 hundred - I am not sure why Google shows up this way. As for the actor, granted he is getting some good press, let's see what the community says about keeping the article. BTW - See WP:IMDBREF and WP:RS/IMDB about the use of IMDB as a reference. reddogsix (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reddogsix as I can see you know a lot more about Wikipedia then myself. I would be eternally grateful if you would edit that page so it can stay on here.I am not very accomplished on here so if you could either delete the parts that should go or add the parts that should go on. even if it is a lot smaller but I do feel he is worthy of being on here. I am a horror and film fan and have been following his work for a number of years but this year I feel he deserves to be on here.Thank you I hope you will be able to help reddogsix and this is not asking to much.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has prominent roles in notable productions so passes WP:NACTOR and the coverage shown above adds up to a pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Zanotti (author)

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

Improperly sourced biography of a writer, whose strongest claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that he and his work existed. The only references cited here at all are the Google Books directory profiles of four of his books -- but since nearly every book that exists at all is going to have one of those, they do not count as evidence of notability in and of themselves any more than having a sales profile on amazon.com would. There's no reliable source coverage about him in media present to support any of the biographical content at all, but that's the kind of sourcing we would need to see before we could keep this. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Will try to establish source for this article. Zazzysa (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are finding some blog posts etc. and a couple of passing name checks in books but nothing that can sustain an article as a reliable source. Happy to reconsider if Zazzysa locates anything as mentioned above, but as it stands this fails WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Aryal

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article. Previous AfD closed as "soft delete", so we need some real votes this time please! Edwardx (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should look carefully keeping in mind the previous discussion, no international coverage, could be a delete than keepChrisswill (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indications subject meets notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Khatiwada

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

Not notable vlogger Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the first hip hop artists in Nepal in the duo GP (which is suggested as a search term) according to this reliable source here Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with the greatest respect to Atlantic306, I think their !vote fundamentally mistakes what notability is. Being the first to do something in itself confers no notability. For example, "Bob was one of the first opera singers in Iceland" is a similar statement (assume it is backed up with one reliable source) doesn't make Bob notable in the slightest. Often, being the first person to do something will elicit media coverage which does confer notability. However, there simply aren't enough reliable sources that give significant coverage to suggest that is the case here. Khatiwada appears to have had little impact on his field of music and fails musician notability standards. The source Atlantic306 provided covers the duo of which he is a part. Maybe that duo would pass band notability standards but as a standalone article, it's a delete from me. DrStrauss talk 16:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant he has received sig coverage partly because he was jointly with his co - rapper the first hip hop artist in Nepal and therefore passes WP:GNG, another source here and this one here both describe him as a music pioneer in Nepal so he does have a significant effect on his field and passes WP:NMUSIC. Having an article on the duo would be a good alternative to this article if it goes. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage does not rise to the level required to pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Haven

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to an interview, the subject's web site, and industry promotional materials, none of which are suitable for establishing notability. The award category listed -- F.A.M.E. Award (Favorite Underrated Star) -- is not significant and well known, thus not meeting WP:PORNBIO either. The article was kept at AfD in 2007, but since then the community standards for BLPs have tightened significantly. I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass GNG. The main sources of the article are primary and self-published. Independent searches get incidental coverage by the likes of TMZ, mostly concerning an incident with War Machine. Others come from the subject claims of involvement with a football player, mostly based about what the subject says about herself in a TMZ article. One Spanish-language news article credits Wikipedia as its source. GNews hits are available, but they are of low quality. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to userspace. I've marked the resulting redirect for R2. WP:NPASR if it's returned to mainspace. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Khan (Youtuber)

AfDs for this article:

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

fails to meet basic WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced promo piece. PRehse (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as he fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usman Khan (Youtuber) (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Khan (Youtuber)

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

fails WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All Star Videoke. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of All Star Videoke episodes

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

TV episode list for a show with only 2 episodes so far. Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally keep episode lists for game shows regardless of length, but you could have dealt with this just through redirection. See WP:ATD. AFD should almost never be used for dealing with splits of subtopics, and really should never be used in such circumstances without first attempting resolution or development through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I didn't think of that till after I posted this of course, I also put a prod on a similar article by the creator of it btw. Well you can vote for redirect if you want. (I wasn't sure though if this would be a delete or redirect at first I will admit) Wgolf (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirection would have been an easy way to resolve it without all this AFD process. While we're here, however, as the main page for a game show also should not list all of its episodes, a good argument could be made for outright deletion if a redirect would be useless or even inaccurate. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the page I put a prod for was List of super ma'am episodes, which turned into a redirect for the same article, not sure what tag to put for the new article. Wgolf (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that article is List of Super Ma'am episodes, so if someone wants to start a discussion for that-since the prod was removed on the original article that turned into a redirect into that! Wgolf (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't, just merge/redirect it to the main article for the series, which as a dramatic series would be expected to list episodes and then eventually WP:SPLIT to a separate list once the size merited it. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All Star Videoke. Ajf773 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amai Liu

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

No indication of notability. Trivialist (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim of notability is millions of views on a porn site. No claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. No independent reliable sources cited or found in search to support WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any references to reliable sources, thus failing our core content policy of verifiability. No evidence is offered that she meets our General notability guideline, and none that she meet WP:PORNBIO, which I consider too lenient, but at least creates the basis for a real debate. Biographies of living people have stringent standards, which this article fails. This person exists, performs in adult videos, but is not now a notable person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately. Although I am fan of her, she fails to meet general notability criteria because of lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and WP:PORNBIO because she hasnt won notable awards. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete under WP:A7. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any assertion of importance or significance. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 - No importance or credible significance. –Davey2010^Talk 12:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: she is notable enough to be exluded from A7. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - She isn't notable enough at all. A7 IMHO still applies. –Davey2010^Talk 09:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable references whatsoever, fails notability guidelines. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 04:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. This run of the mill porn bio is noteworthy only for the lack of a glossy photograph, which most of the crap of this nature is built around. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project for Public Spaces

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

non-notable CelenaSkaggs (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a lot of sources in gnews. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "Town and Country Planning" article that I added as a reference says this organisation "enjoys an international reputation for its work on the design and management of public space". There is also a discussion in a book on "Urban Open Space" and other coverage (via Highbeam) includes from Buffalo [34], Orlando [35], Pittsburgh [36], Milwaukee [37]. I think there is enough overall for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massive amount of WP:SIGCOV over many years in the local paper, search here: [38],) but even if it is the local paper, the New York Times is a WP:RS. Just needs a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll be serious now, this is a notable city planning organization that has had an ongoing impact on NYC over the course of several decades, plus it publishes widely cited books and reports on issues in city planning, and the projects it has implemented in New York are widely cited as models useful in design of other cities. Note that this is a good-faith nomination by an editor who seems to have failed to run a proper WP:BEFORE search, in Nom's defense, article is poorly sourced and far too brief. Had we but editors enough, and time.....E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 05:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Williams (basketball)

AfDs for this article:

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

Revisiting this since the prior AfD did not receive the proper turn-out to address the notability issue. Firstly, Williams never played a single game on a significant professional sports team; hence he fails WP:NHOOPS. On closer examination of the sources, we find they are mainly passing mentions which fall short of WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator since he did not play in a single professional game. Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A short Google search turned up a couple articles about him that were note already on the page, a rather indepth one in the Japan Times and another on spin.ph. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of commentary by Williams himself in those examples, I would almost consider them WP:PRIMARY sources. The rest of the sources in the article, as I mentioned, were in passing, not in-depth by any means.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is messy, but that's true of many articles on Wikipedia. I think Dammit steve's links would traditionally count for establishing notability. Williams didn't write those articles himself; journalists decided which quotations to use in the articles and decided how to construct the narratives. I wouldn't say that most streetballers are notable, but some streetball events, like the And1 tour, had a sizable fanbase. I think we at least have enough evidence that Larry Williams isn't just some random guy posting videos of himself on the internet; he had some genuine fame in the streetball world. Zagalejo^^^ 19:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- Everything I can find signifies that he is a notable streetball player and pop culture presence. He easily meets GNG. Google results list him as a streetball legend and icon. Just because he didn't play in the NBA doesn't mean he is not notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To put another way, I think more people will look up Williams than would look up some member of the 1993 New York Knicks who appeared in one game off the bench. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it does per WP:NHOOP...and I demonstrated why he does not "easily pass GNG".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the sports notability page "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." That is, failing to meet NHOOPS only means that it does not pass that specific measure of notability. I have found a lot of coverage of the individual and he certainly seems notable to me, and that explains my vote. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 07:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vali Boghean

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

The sources don't really bear out a claim of notability. We've got:

Three song clips - not really worth our time dissecting these
An announcement that the subject will be attending a jazz festival... on the site of that jazz festival (independent sources, anyone?)
Passing mention on his employer's website (for starters, obvious lack of objectivity)
Some IMDb cruft that doesn't even mention the subject
Something about an award - on the site of the people handing out the award, with no independent verification as to its significance
Yet another jazz festival announcement on the site of the festival that's hosting him (once again: clearly not independent)

In summary, there is no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The subject seems utterly peripheral based on the sources supplied, and so the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odoo

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Entirely and hopelessly promotional, fails WP:SPIP, WP:PROMO. Most references are PRIMARY and fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Even assuming the topic may be notable, it would require a rewrite. This is the third nomination but the article has not been improved. Most importantly, intellectual references from secondary sources and an encyclopedic and not promotionally toned article are required. Previous AfD Keep !votes commented on facts about number of installations, etc, but failed to produce references that meet the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and fix the issues by editing. It's obviously notable. --Michig (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All very well, but it has been tagged since Feb 2017 and fails WP:PROMO. Even if a topic is notable, it doesn't get a pass on the other policies. If someone with some knowledge of the topic takes the editorial axe to the article and whips it into shape, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This version was neutral and reasonably well sourced. Someone coming along later and adding a load of promotional content is a reason for reverting, not deletion. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up, it's not a company so WP:NCORP doesn't apply here. As a piece of software it just about passes WP:GNG. I agree that it is largely sourced to primary sources and such things as prices should definitely be removed. Sionk (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing here exceptional, just another piece of run-of-the-mill software. The sources are in their majority primary and self-published. If this is notable, the article is making a poor show of demonstrating this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an obvious keep with revisions to me. My business uses the open-source Odoo 8.0 as our ERP software, and I just went to this page to find out what underlying languages were used to develop it. I found the answer (Python), so this article helped me and has utility. Odoo competes head-on with Microsoft Dynamics, etc., and there is nothing else like it that is open-source. I agree that the article reads like a sales pitch and needs to be revised. Sorry if my comment here isn't added and/or formatted and/or phrased correctly; I rarely comment on wikipedia. However, I do donate every month! MrKit2u (talk) 8:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gesundheit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to sneezing

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

Almost entirely uncited, and some of the listed responses seem unlikely. It's an amusing page, for sure, but not verifiable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely uncited since 2009. Citogenesis waiting to happen. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be trivial. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Very enjoyable page, causing no harm to anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.102.29 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per countless readily available sources such as [39], [40], [41] and [42]. Of course the article, like millions of others, needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per readily available sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess the thing to do is remove all unsourced items as possible hoaxes (per User:Gamaliel). That would leave us with English, Icelandic, German, and the first line of the lede. The non-list content is already too weak for an article, so I'm leaning toward Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second of the books that I linked above is an academic work that lists the responses in a dozen or so languages, and that's just one of the sources that I found in a few seconds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think notability factors in at all here; this is clearly a sub-page of sneeze. The "List of responses in other languages" table may be better suited for some other wiki (Wiktionary?) but I don't have any specific proposal that I think is an improvement. I agree there's a case to delete by WP:TNT to ensure all the content is sourced properly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this is a sub-page of sneeze. Most reliable sources, such as those that I listed above, seem to cover this in the context of language and culture rather than of sneezing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't delete ~~stuff~~ articles just because at present they happen to be unsourced. The topic is clearly notable, and if there are issues with any specific entries, it will be a trivial task to verify them against a dictionary. Mention of the topic can of course be made at Sneeze but the list is too long to be merged there. – Uanfala 06:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources available that can verify this article's contents (see, e.g., this and this). The solution is to add references, not delete. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I just looked this page up to find out about ways to say bless you in other languages. It definitely serves a purpose, and I certainly think the information CAN be sourced. Unsourced info can be challenged and removed, obviously, but there is no reason to delete the page, as the topic is something that people wonder about, and further there is enough info to have a standalone article apart from the Sneezing page. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Gebara

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

Doesn't seem notable enough. Would be glad to see evidence to the contrary. Nerd1a4i (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Clearly fails WP:ACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tim Yap. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tim Yap Show

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Nerd1a4i (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redicect to Tim Yap, no sources could be found. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there just found source at the top of an article just saw premiered. Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tim Yap. No need to have a separate article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although not notable in USA or India it seems notable in the Philippines from provided sources. Article needs destubation.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment INDIAN REVERTER is a ~~new~~ blocked account whose posting history is almost entirely "Keep" submissions to AfDs. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarish Mitra

AfDs for this article:

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

This page consists pretty heavily of promotional-like material and has had NPOV problems since 2015, if not earlier. It also seems one of the major contributors likely has COI issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joannamk Brian-armstrong (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MDaemon

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

Article is mostly promotional in content and appears to contain little encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: MDaemon is a notable product, promotional content can be rephrased or removed. --Zac67 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just commercial promotional blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Reviews mentioned in the further reading section. There are more (eg. InfoWorld, 24 April 2000, p. 66). However, I agree the article is in a terrible state, most informations are referenced by the company webpage - TNT is the way to go... and start anew. I would delete anything other than lead, Early history and Version History (well, maybe this one too... there should be at least references to available reviews). Pavlor (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not notable and basically reaches criteria for speedy deletion. A7 and G11 policies support deletion of this article (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FockeWulf FW 190: As of miserable article content, I just removed most of corpcruft and my intention is to rewrite the article (there is plenty of RS for that purpose). ~~Note your delete "vote" is already included in your nomination. Please change this to "comment".~~ Pavlor (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Pavlor (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MILL, as nothing indicates to me why Wikipedia requires this article if similar ones exist. Potentially fails WP:PRODUCT as well.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Games2win

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

Fails WP:NCORP, almost everything about them on the internet is essentially WP:PROMO or not a significant source. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of announcements in the WP:VG/S custom search engine but nothing of significant coverage. My inclination is to delete, but the non-Western bent of the article gives me some slight pause. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Interactive

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

Fails WP:NCORP, I couldn't find significant mentions of them as a studio. PROD was removed so that or redirect wasn't an option. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Cat Crossing

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, while there are reliable sources, they are only several release announcements and therefore fail WP:SUSTAINED. There are no real reviews to speak of. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails both WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARC Ratings

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

By its own admission it is not a major credit rating agency. The only ref is a PE-inspired notice DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It rates articles in Reuters, the Toronto Star, the French version of Huffington Post and Business Standard, plus at least a couple of pages in the book Credit Rating Governance: Global Credit Gatekeepers Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH, for despite being cited in a number of well-regarded sources (per CAPTAIN RAJU), none of the articles concern the subject. Rather, they refer to the article subject in passing or concern the industry as a whole (excluding the Toronto Star article). As ARC Ratings is not particularity notable (despite claims) when compared to other credit rating companies, it fails WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory-entry on an unremarkable credit agency. Sources listed above lack WP:CORPDEPTH and there's nothing better available. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hispanic neighborhoods

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

Completely unsourced and this looks like a directory, an example of WP:NOT jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR, as well as being an indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this article has been around for eight years, it apparently has never had a source (or at least not in the selected edits I reviewed). The introduction to the list says, and apparently has always said, "These are a list of neighborhoods with a majority Hispanic population, the demographic information is the article is based on the demographics offered by . [sic] The population of each neighborhood on the list is 50%+ Hispanic. Note: The references for this article are found within . [sic] It clearly states a Hispanic population of above 50% for each neighborhood on the list." The source that the article supposedly uses was never identified, and the article creator only left a blank space to identify it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. An un-maintainable list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do no neighbourhoods in the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America or, for that matter, Spain have over 50% Hispanic populations? I would have thought that nearly all of them do. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that comment for those who might have difficulty "reading between the lines", a list of Hispanic neighbourhoods as described by the title and the lead section of the article would be absurdly long, including nearly all neighbourhoods in quite a few countries. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the authors of this article only decided to include neighborhoods in the United States. While it is possible to include other countries, the lack of sources is the main issue here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the lack of sources. All references were pulled from within each article as the note was trying to say. Articles without explicit references marking it as >50% Hispanic have been marked as disputed (dubious might have been better, but I only remembered the word now). The question now is, does this expand upon List of U.S. communities with Hispanic-majority populations in the 2010 census, which already exists? As a few locations (South Gate, Fruitvale, East Palo Alto) are sourced and aren't on the larger list, deletion is probably not warranted, but a tentative merge might be. menaechmi (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article was obviously supposed to be about communities in the United States, but the creator and subsequent editors, for some inexplicable reason, didn't even mention the United States in the title or the text. Menaechmi has shown that we have a properly titled and properly scoped article about Hispanic majority communities in the United States (which may or may not be notable - I haven't checked), and this title should not be a redirect because it doesn't mention the United States, which is obviously needed. We don't have some default point of view that every article is about the United States unless stated otherwise. Adding entries from this uncopyrightable list to List of U.S. communities with Hispanic-majority populations in the 2010 census doesn't require us to keep the history of this article for attribution purposes. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - call it OR or a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, your choice. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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