Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 April	21 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Chase[edit]

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

An unremarkable adult actress; significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail not found. Article sourced to interviews, industry PR materials and otherwise unsuitable sources.

Mainstream appearances are trivial, as in "Chase was among the pornographic actresses who appeared in the welcome home party scene..." WP:PORNBIO is not met as the awards listed are niche or scene related. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No qualifying awards. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of sickle-cell disease researchers[edit]

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

Seems rather bizarre to have a list of people known for a particular research topic. PriceDL (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable researchers, notable topic, not a non-encyclopedic cross categorization... I see no reason to delete this. However, if really desired it could be upmerged into Sickle-cell disease#Research. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would supporting merging information into Sickle-cell disease#Research where their sickle-cell research is sufficiently notable, though not as a list without explanation of their contributions. PriceDL (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – This material seems to me like it would work better as part of Sickle-cell disease#Research, in paragraph form (say, one or two sentences per person). XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are WP:NOTADIRECTORY and the list has an overly broad scope. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete' WP:NOTDIRECTORY - entirely a work of WP:OR. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NLIST. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Why would people not just look at pubmed and just look at the authors? Agree concerned about a directory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Peabody Trust. Kurykh (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family Mosaic[edit]

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

I'm not quite sure if this passes WP:GNG and so would like to take this through AfD. Peabody is definitely an important organisation in London, but I'm not sure if 'Family Mosaic' is. Would appreciate some independent views on this. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Also meets WP:AUD per non-local coverage, such as in BBC News and The Guardian. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – per my comment and discussion below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Lunn, Emma (October 3, 2014). "Housing association residents 'cut off from heating five months of the year'". The Guardian. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
"'Ignored' Family Mosaic tenant hurt in ceiling collapse". BBC News. March 30, 2015. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
Bartholomew, Emma (March 31, 2015). "Family Mosaic accused of 'breaching values'". Hackney Gazette. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
McKay, Jessica (March 14, 2015). "Housing company makes support workers homeless". Hackney Post. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
"Rat infestation causes misery for housing association tenants". Times. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
"Care company transfers contract after two years". Bexhill Observer. March 18, 2016. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
Hopps, Kat (June 8, 2016). "Stratford families 'annoyed' with housing association employees for taking their parking bays". Newham Recorder. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
Ivory, Mark (October 14, 2015). "Housing associations bid to ease the pressure on the NHS". The Guardian. Retrieved July 31, 2016.

Merge We normally do not consider consumer complaints as sufficient for notability, because they have no connection with the significance of the organization but are just incidental. We also normally do not consider local papers within a city sufficient for notability However, some of these are not individual tenant complaints, and one was in the Guardian. I do not count the Times reference because it is not The Times in the usual sense but the Hendon & Finchley, Barnett & Potters Bar, Edgware & Mill Hill Times which is one of their local online supplements. It's not at all the same thing) The BBC is also not their national service, but the London edition, but at least it's not a neighborhood version; however, it is an individual complaint. That basically leaves the Ivory reference only, which is a general article that in one small part of the articles reports an isolated study that happened to use this particular association. I notice that of the other such associations, some are even scantier than this, and some are perhaps excessively detailed. The obvious solution to this one is to merge with Peabody. DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request seems incredibly reasonable. I would like to second merge. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 15:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would be fine with a merge to Peabody Trust. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone disagree with Merge? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Seems a good idea under the circumstances. Nearly all the coverage of this housing association is negative, and it does not seem fair for us to have articles on "failing" housing associations while not having them about better run establishments which have not therefore garnered so much press coverage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, until the business merger is completed, then merge and redirect to Peabody. Family Mosaic is one of the G15 (housing associations) which IMHO indicates notability. – Fayenatic London 13:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 15:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Collins (psychiatrist)[edit]

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

Non-notable, autobiographical by WP:SPA Wunderkidding (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what is, effectively, a CV of a psychiatrist, albeit a successful and respected one in his field. He's quoted numerous times in news articles about court cases and other matters, but I can't find anything of any substance about him. The only slight chink of light is the 2009 article about his military service, but the article is conveniently a week before the newspaper's online archive begins. I would have thought that if the article was of any substance, it would have been used for more than one sentence in the Wikipedia article. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

since that article is syndicated by CanWest, my news archive search on "Peter Collins" + psychiatrist turned up copies in other newspapers, paywalled link [1] to the Edmonton Journal. It is, in fact, a long, detailed profile form which material can certainly be added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the article creator is far from an SPA, it's prolific resigned editor Jokestress. Per WP:BOOMERANG, if anyone's an SPA here it's the nominator, whose only other contributions were to add content on "Forensic department controversies" at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, where Collins works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Gsearches haven't turned up anything other than passing mentions -- but they do verify that the article subject is a recognized Canadian expert in his field, frequently called up for major investigations, court cases, etc. Yes, the article does at times read too much like a CV -- but it's been collectively edited by many editors over years and is in no way, shape or form the sole work of an SPA. Whereas the nominator seems to surface periodically to edit solely in a way that is critical of the CAMH or forensic psychiatry, unilaterally try to redirect this article, and so on. Weak delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By "by WP:SPA," I meant the person who wrote most the content, not the person who created the article. Wunderkidding (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which I take it would be Lamplighter98/Lamplighter99 (two linked accounts, it seems) one of which reverted you? Still, this article isn't "by" him. And going back to 2009, this article has ebbed and flowed rather massively, as something of a magnet for edit warring, with numerous editors and IPs creating and removing a great deal of content. One of those Lamplighter accounts, at least, should be blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported Lamplighter99 at SPI. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have above average expertise in some areas of his field. But I fail to see his notability via press, etc. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll just add that User:Lamplighter99, the account that reverted the nominator's redirect, has now been blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the profile in the National Post that is already in the article (and which an archive search shows to have been picked up by several other major Canadian newsapers]] there is this 1998 Globe and Mail article ("Ontario Provincial Police are moving into the field of forensic psychiatry in the fight against crime. The force has hired Dr. Peter Collins of Toronto's Clarke Institute of Psychiatry to manage its new forensic-psychiatry unit...."), (OPP hires psychiatrist The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]22 Apr 1998: A.4. [2]); there are literally hundreds of separate articles over many years in which he is discussed in the context of having testified in high-profile cases, and many otheres where he is interviewed and quoted regarding high-profile crimes in which he is not participating as an expert witness, (here [3], for example, in the course of quoting hm at some length on the Anders Behring Breivik the National Post describes Collins as "Peter Collins, a consultant forensic psychiatrist to several police agencies, court-recognized expert on violent crime and an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto." He clearly is a prominent Canadian psychiatrist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, article should be reduced to what can be reliably sourced. I added his faculty bio as an external link. Note, however, that he appears to be a practitioner and a teacher, not primarily a researcher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the single link in the article is a dead one; we almost always delete articles about Associate professors. If kept, the focus of the article needs to be as a talking head, and sourcing needs to reflect those "facts on the ground". Bearian (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota A25A Engine[edit]

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

Fails WP:Crystal by a long way. Park in userspace, or delete. No references to verify validity of article. Currently fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no references supplied in the article. In my own search, I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. If this were a notable engine, I would have expected to have found some sort of coverage in one of the many car magazines and web sites. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There must be many thousands of different engines and very few become notable. There is nothing unique about this one that has resulted in significant in-depth coverage. MB 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 15:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Aviation Sikorsky S-76 Crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable helicopter accident not too dissimilar to 2017 Snowdonia helicopter crash which was just recently deleted. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fail WP:NEVENTS. Doesn't seem all that impactful (regionally or globally) beyond the family, friends, and associates of those killed. Tragic, but not notable. bojo | talk 15:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and nomination.--Petebutt (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Note from article creator. Thanks for this valuable discussion about the article i have created. It will be a guideline for me for the future. But, before creating this article i nearly checked and read articles in -Category:Accidents and incidents involving helicopters- and List of accidents and incidents involving helicopters. If this article is not notable, then we should nearly delete half of the articles involving accidents involving helicopter because most of them local and with low fatalities. Please do not get this as an objection. Thanks for the time. Mingus79 (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems some specialized areas of Wikipedia commonly have more detailed article topics (like military history). I think it should be compared to other articles in the appropriate area - the category here (Aviation accidents in Turkey) has many similar articles. Since this article is similar to the other articles in its category, so I see no reason to single it out. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and current significant coverage. Time will tell if it is sustained. --NoGhost (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sad to those involved but civil helicopter accidents are fairly common to not be noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article, just because it was in the news for a few days still doesnt make it notable. It did hit something notable so a mention at Endem TV Tower which already exists is all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge into Endem TV Tower - Seems that the content has some value. Still, I wonder whether the article can sustain its longevity at its small size. Nevertheless, the investigation is ongoing, so either let's for a while or put it into the other page. George Ho (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still Keep.Note from article creator. If we are deleting this article because civil aviation accidents are fairly common and to not be noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article, we also shall delete hunderds of articles listed in the similar categories. This article is no different from other articles listed in aviation categories. (Category:Accidents and incidents involving helicopters) Mingus79 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like everyday news reporting about an accident. No one famous died, nothing out of the ordinary, just news of the moment. The coverage in some sources is expected but not a measure of notability. ValarianB (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may not have been notable if the 7 people died in a car crash, but, far from being a "fairly common" incident, this was the second most deadly aircrash to have taken place *worldwide* so far in 2017. Wikipedia is, among other things, an encyclopedia of aviation incidents, and this incident is encyclopedia worthy. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Read article; looked for sources; read comments here and NPalgan2's argument persuades me. 2nd place in the category since "Jan 1 of this year" is not persuasive. More to the point, nothing points to this having been other than an accident. Plus: no notable passengers, didn't crash into one of the minarets at the Blue Mosque or into a Russian ship.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @ NPalgan2 - Pivox (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Microbiology Society. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 15:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microbial Genomics (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given, but after adding indexing in PubMed Central. PMC includes all OA journals in its subject area (excluding only the most egregious predatory ones) and is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals. Therefore, PROD reason still stands, article creation too soon. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This journal has been created by the learned society the Microbiology Society, a charity that support the advancement of the subject of microbiology and is certainly not a predatory journal as Randykitty is suggesting. Gavin Thomas

Comment I am sorry for not being clearer, but if you read my comments again, I do in no way suggest, nor did I intend to suggest, that this is a predatory journal. I only wanted to say that the only journals that PMC excludes are predatory ones, meaning that inclusion in PMC is basically automatic for any good-faith journal, so that PMC cannot be considered a selective database in the sense of NJournals. Hope this clarifies. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Thomas Apologies, I misread excluded for included.
Keep: A variety of external sources now added that refer to science published in the journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinThomas (talk • contribs) 14:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that addition was WP:SYNTH. You need a source where the journal is the subject and indicates what types of things have appeared, not present a synthesis based on individual papers that happen to have been published there being representative of the journal's offerings. Agricolae (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so can you tell me why MBio's page is OK, for example. The sources it uses are either to articles on the publisher's own WWW pages or other ASM journals, links to the WWW sites of the editors, generic articles about open access (that are not specific to the journal), or links to papers published in the journals. I have been told by various people now that none of these are sufficient for Microbial Genetics. Given that a scientific journal can only be known for the articles it publishes, I can't see how any other metric than how important the papers it actually publishes can be relevant. Sorry, I'm slowly losing the will to keep on with this...GavinThomas

What makes you think MBio is OK? - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is not like the joke about the bear, where you just have to not be the slowest runner. Your basis for determining notability is how it stacks up to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), not how it stacks up to MBio. Also, many of your cites came directly or indirectly from university publicity offices, which are inherently biased when characterizing the importance of the work of their people. Still, the bigger problem is that Wikipedia editors shouldn't do their own synthesis. We don't describe a forest based on individual trees that we find, we have to find a description of the forest that we then summarize. The journal itself needs to have been interesting enough for someone to have directly commented on it, not just on a paper that happened to be published in it. If you can find someone saying that 'Microbial Genomics has published some important studies on X', that it what we are after, not 'this important study on X appeared in the journal Microbial Genomics'. Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for being so clear Agricolae. Maybe I'll try again in a few years when this material is out there or more quickly when the journal is listed in Scopus (a selective abstracting service, which alone seems to fulfil the notability criteria). Given I am the only voice for keep, then it looks like its for the chop. GavinThomas —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indications of journal notability, is new, and lacks selective indexing as mentioned previously. Most of the sources used are just publications from the journal itself. It may fulfill WP:JOURNALCRIT someday, but it's not ready for an article now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All publications of major learned societes like the American Society for Microbiology or the Microbiology Society are clearly relevant.--Erykah Badu (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please base your !vote in policy, not your personal opinion. Also, please refrain from using insulting edit summaries. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just blocked this editor as a likely impersonation of Erykah Badu. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RK. This completely fails WP:NJOURNALS. Merging to Microbiology Society would be much better however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - it seems obvious from the discussion that the sourcing doesn not exist to support this being notable. Agricolae (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind - Redirect to Microbiology Society as others have suggested. Agricolae (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Microbiology Society. WP:TOOSOON. It is not the main journal of the Society - that is, of course, Microbiology. St Anselm (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Microbiology Society. I'm pretty sure that this journal is bound to get popular in the next couple of years. (It will also most likely be indexed in the 2016 Journal Citation Reports to be released in June/July 2017.) But alas, we're not a crystal ball, and thus we'll have to wait until this journal is listed in at least some major databases. WP:TOOSOON. — Stringy Acid (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microbiology Society. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. Rajesh Kannan[edit]

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

Promotional article about a person who does not meet WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find reliable sources needed to pass GNG Spiderone 14:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, I am unable to find any non-trivial mention of him in reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Previously deleted as an A7 autobiography at Rajesh kannan S - if it weren't so stale I'd be looking for an WP:SPI. Cabayi (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 16:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of solitary animals[edit]

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

If done properly, this list will include almost all animal species in the world--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to find references. I did a Google search on "what animals are loners?" and this article popped up first, answered my question, so I could go back to writing my article. Then I noticed that it was flagged for deletion. Say what?! Coming here to read why, the explanation is that if all such animals were listed, it would be too long. If that is the case, change the title to "List of familiar solitary animals" or some other qualifier.

In my case, I wanted to find some quick examples for a social essay... "bear" and "tiger" were the best for my essay. Sure, in hindsight, I already knew that, but it was a quick way to tickle my mind. That is the beauty of the Internet, especially how Google searches and Wikipedia make it easy.

The article works. Effectiveness is the measure. Miguel Madeira does not understand the value because his definition of "properly" is flawed. What he means to say is "comprehensively", which in this case would be improper because it defeats the purpose of the article. This is a useful article. Leave it. ClassicalScholar 09:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Solitary animal, where a list already appears. I agree that a well-done stand-alone list would be a daunting task, several prominent examples are all that's needed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted, this is a hole without bottom. Even solitary animal strikes me as somewhat superfluous and containing completely arbitrary examples. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added re categorization: I wouldn't bother with turning it into a category either. The concept is just too broad to ever find comprehensive application, so we'll end up with a random selection of articles categorized as such, and likely not even containing the cases one would consider particularly illustrative.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solitary animal, where a smaller, more manageable list is already included. This is a hopelessly expansive list, and a target of sporadic vandalism to boot. ansh 666 18:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize then redirect instead. Note that the reason given for deletion "If done properly, this list will include probably almost all animal species in the world" is incorrect. As the main article (Solitary animals) states, this is not a list of animals that may be solitary at some point in their lives, but for most of their life.

In any case, solitariness is an adaptation, and many adaptations are already categorized at Category:Animals by adaptation, even if they have numerous entries (the main objection to the list). While the main article (Solitary animals) can summarize, it should not have an exhaustive list. That belongs to a category.

Create a new category under Category:Animals by adaptation called Category:Solitary animals
For each animal in the List of solitary animals,
1. Add it to Category:Solitary animals.
2. Ensure that the citation to solitariness (in the list, if any) is included in the animal's article.
Add Category:Solitary dolphins and Solitary animals to Category:Solitary animals
Redirect List of solitary animals to Category:Solitary animals

Dpleibovitz (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no new categories. Be Aware of category clutter, we don't need categories for every conceivable adaptation. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize then redirect instead. This seems to be a high-quality response that dovetails with WP guidelines, so I agree with it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. This is an absurd case of railroading. What is the verifiable source of "If done properly, this list will include almost all animal species in the world" because it is nonsense. Eddaido (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"absurd"? "railroading"? "nonsense"? Language as immoderate as this seems, in the context, lost and confused to me. Can you explain what you are trying to communicate? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the "if done properly, this list will include almost all animal species in the world". Take, not the animals, not the chordates, not the mammals, not the Carnivora, but only the felids. Solitary species:

Tiger (Panthera tigris)

Jaguar (Panthera onca)

Leopard (Panthera pardus)

Snow leopard (Panthera uncia)

Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa)

Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi)

Marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata)

Bay cat (Catopuma badia)

Asian golden cat (Catopuma temminckii)

Caracal (Caracal caracal)

African golden cat (Caracal aurata)

Serval (Caracal serval)

Pantanal cat (Leopardus braccatus)

Colocolo (Leopardus colocolo)

Geoffroy's cat (Leopardus geoffroyi)

Kodkod (Leopardus guigna)

Southern tigrina (Leopardus guttulus)

Andean mountain cat (Leopardus jacobitus)

Pampas cat (Leopardus pajeros)

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)

Oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus)

Margay (Leopardus wiedii)

Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis)

Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)

Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)

Bobcat (Lynx rufus)

Cougar (Puma concolor)

Jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi)

Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)

Iriomote cat (Prionailurus bengalensis iriomotensis)

Flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps)

Rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus)

Fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus)

Pallas's cat (Otocolobus manul)

Jungle cat (Felis chaus)

Sand cat (Felis margarita)

Black-footed cat (Felis nigripes)

Wildcat (Felis silvestris)

Chinese mountain cat (Felis silvestris bieti)

(all except lion, domestic cat and cheetah); even if I am wrong and one or two of the above are not really solitary, we have dozens of solitary animals in only one family; or look to the 400,000 species of coleoptera - besides the Nicrophorus (68 species), there is any other that it is not solitary? Perhaps, but even if only half (instead that, as I suppose, more than 95%) of the coleoptera are solitary, we will have a list with 200,000 entries, only in one order.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An additional observation - even with billions of solitary animals to choose, the list gets to include some social animals, like the badger; this indicates that this list is impossible to manage in practice--MiguelMadeira (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - About half the 34,000 described fish species shoal at some stage in their life. The rest are basically solitary and should end up on this list. But that's only the beginning. There are over one million described insect species, and perhaps another ten million yet to be described. Most of these are solitary, and will end up on the list. This means the article will need maybe thousands of editors to help it become more complete. It will finish up many tens of megabytes long, much longer than the bible – a truly monumental Wikipedia undertaking and something risible Wikipedia could become widely known for. However, all is not lost. I propose deleting this splendidly silly article and replacing it with its potentially shorter and therefore more manageable and slightly less silly complementary article, List of non-solitary animals. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a lonely life out there in the animal kingdom. the vast majority of species are solitary. building and managing such a list would be an immense undertaking and the results would be completely uninteresting.Glendoremus (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the cost/benefit of creating such an article would not stack up. Better to use editor resources elsewhere. Knox490 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To categorize or not to categorize?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List articles are only really useful if they're manageable and at least substantially complete. This one will never be those things, it will forever be a "List of certain solitary animals". It's pointless now since it only contains a few random examples of the huge number of solitary animals that exist, but would be equally pointless if it were complete because then it would be ridiculously long. Neiltonks (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to solitary animal and Redirect - Others have made a convincing case that this is just far too large of a grouping to make for an appropriate list topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plainly useful for our core readership -- students -- and ~~not needlessly~~ duplicative of either the main article or of the category. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bearian: I confess to being surprised by this vote of yours (immediately above). To vote in that manner at this stage seems obstructive to achieving a rational result here. You really need to explain whether you are just being willfully obstructive, or whether, having carefully considered the other comments above, you genuinely have credible reasons for for thinking this list might be useful. It is not good enough to just baldly declare that the list is "plainly useful for our core readership", and then leave that authoritarian-style statement dangling, unsupported with a single rationale. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Epipelagic, please be civil and assume good faith. Of course this list would be useful to some of our readers. Whether it would be overwhelming, or less useful than a category, for the majority of our readers and users, is another question. Upon review, I see how this list could be just too much to handle. On the balance, a category rather than a lost would be much better in this instance. I know that may not be a really cogent argument, but that is what I see now. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Llimoo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:ARTIST and WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR. No evidence he is a comedian, or director. Appeared in Crackòvia but in minor role. Strong social media presence, possibly WP:TOOSOON. Seems to appear as presenter a lot. scope_creep (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per scope_creep; there's no significant coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. Nothing on news databases either. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Fast and the Furious characters. ‑Scottywong | express _ 16:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Luke Hobbs[edit]

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

Hi! I've never really done this before but I do not feel that the page in question, that for a Fast and Furious character is significant enough for the project. The page falls within the remit of an existing article, namely List of The Fast and the Furious characters where 'Agent Luke Hobbs' is covered. Full articles for fictional characters should be reserved for protagonists of the upmost importance, which I feel is not demonstrated on any page or any research SadKid01 (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable beyond the franchise itself. Not an overarching character of the type to have indepdent notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The find sources link, especially newspapers, is replete with significant RS coverage of this fictional element: GNG is met. "not notable beyond the franchise itself" and "not an overarching character" are not valid rationales for deletion. Having said that, an editorial decision to trim and merge to the character list would not be inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Fast and the Furious characters. While searches bring up plenty of hits on the character's name, I'm finding very little that actually talks specifically about the character in any meaningful way. They are mainly things such as reviews/synopses of the movies, in which his character is mentioned, or press releases that just announce the character's appearances in certain films in the franchise. There really are not enough sources that talk about Hobbs in any depth that would justify having a separate article for the character, though there is enough out there that a Merge would be appropriate. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-trivial character. He's gotten tons of press over the years. Tons of sources and information on the character. There are Wikipedia pages for much more obscure characters. Right now there is a Gisele Yashar page that we should be proposing deletion for, not Hobbs. I'm all for expanding our coverage of the franchise, as it's pretty thin at the moment, but doing so one step at a time. A Hobbs article is the correct step to take right now. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason. The coverage on the character are not about the character exclusively, therefore all valuable information should be merged into a list.★Trekker (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have a doctorate in Wikipedia policy, but I thought that Wikipedia would and should pride itself on non-bias consistency. And I find it hard to believe that a character like Lord Farquaad would have more sources talking about him than somebody like Hobbs, who is a pivotal and much discussed character in one of the biggest film franchises ever. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikki Lee 1999: I would suggest looking for sources that show that this character has received a significant amount of coverage from third-party, reliable sources in order to fully support your keep vote. Having sources that could be used to construct a section on the character's reception or the character's casting, development, and characterization and either listing them here or putting them in the actual article will help to support your argument. Pointing to other articles on other characters and questioning why they exist does not help your case (which you have already done twice) and is irrelevant to this discussion; I would recommend you avoid this strategy in the future during this AfD and other AfDs. I understand that this character is a major figure in a large media franchise, but it would still be more helpful to spend your time locating sources to support your case. Just trying to provide some constructive advice; if you can do that, then I would be more than happy to change my vote to keep. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources to potentially start with that includes some more behind-the-scenes/production information and reception stuff (1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6) so there could be potential for this. I would recommend you (or anyone else interested in this article) look for more though. Again, just trying to be helpful. I think the primary question is whether or not this character has enough coverage for his own page or if all of the information could safely put in the list article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, character exceeds coverage in any one film in the series. bd2412 T 01:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge, Per what I stated above.★Trekker (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Fast and the Furious characters per Trekker and 64.183.45.226's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This fictional character is noteworthy, and part of one of the most successful film franchises in history, personal distaste for the franchise notwithstanding. If the relatively minor Star Wars franchise character General Grievous gets an article in wikipedia logic dictates the same for Luke Hobbs. Luke Hobbs' appearance in four movies, two of which are higher in Box office sales than Star Wars Episode III, grant him superior notability to the robot general. Notability, of course, being a major criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason. Same as above. This "wikipedia logic" you claim exist is false.★Trekker (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a missing comma in there. I typo, therefore I am. It should have read 'wikipedia, logic'. I'm not referring to some concept. I'm not referring to 'other stuff exists' specifically either. I was comparing a one-movie character to a four-movie character, and referencing the movies MUCH larger grosses in the box office as a clear sign of notability. As for independent notability, there are non-trivial references noted in the article. This wouldn't even be a AfD if it were another franchise, but Fast & Furious actually outperformed Star Wars, Star Trek, and Harry Potter. It's characters deserve the same level of inclusion as any of those franchises. Arguably more so, as the film franchise tops the heap of all film franchises. Even if I haven't paid to see one, ever, and did pay to see all of the other three franchise film series I mentioned. As there is no specific Notability guidelines for fictional characters that I have read, I will borrow some I know from other guidelines. 'Notability can be imparted.' 'This character was part of an ensemble cast that placed one or more films high in box-office ratings.'Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either way there either is evidence of independent notability or there is not. You can find sources that prove that the character is indeed notable or you can't. The fact that a franchise is big means very little.★Trekker (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After some digging (and finding out the following 1) way too many Fast & Furious fanfics have been written. 2)Dwayne Johnson lookalikes get recruited for gay porn 3) too many people want to buy clothes to make them look like Luke Hobbs) I submit the following links: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0247678/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3665139/Dwayne-Johnson-flexes-mighty-muscles-Luke-Hobbs-shares-peek-Fast-8.html http://theactionelite.com/2014/01/luke-hobbs-worst-cop-ever/ http://www.criticalhit.net/entertainment/dwayne-johnson-reveals-first-look-at-fast-8s-hobbs-hints-strongly-at-spinoff-movie/ Some of which actually come from semi-reputable secondary sources. The character also seems to have been parodied in some popular music video by some musician I didn't read about.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of The Fast and the Furious characters per WP:WAF § Notability because I do not see coverage from secondary sources about this character that would warrant a separate article. This film series has not received much retrospective analysis, compared to something like Star Wars where there are books written that could go into depth about a character even if they only appear once. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycles with sidecars[edit]

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

Article is inherently useless - by definition, *any* motorcycle can have a sidecar fitted, all the way from Vespa to Goldwing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is already an article Sidecar, which covers the topic in better detail. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too trivial an article type. Previous editor RfD evaluations were sound.Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sidecar. The list aspect isn't very useful, for reasons stated (many bikes can have a sidecar fitted, and the list doesn't provide any useful information about car design, or have clear inclusion criteria). But much of this article is sourced info on sidecar design which isn't covered in the main sidecar article. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original nominator. I just don't think there's enough in the article to warrant moving across - apart from a couple of images perhaps. The two sections Two side-cars with motorcycle in the middle is poorly sourced, and Side-cars that seat two passengers treats the concept as a one-off, despite a quick google search showing that there are several manufacturers - Watsonian, Hannigan, Kenna, etc, who make 2 seat sidecars.

Additionally, I'm not sure what was meant by "clearer consensus" in re-listing it - there were two commentators, both whom suggested Delete - that seems pretty clear to me? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DEM4 Laboratory[edit]

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

A second of related promotional articles that provide no evidence of notability. The only reliable source used as a reference mentions the company as a subsidiary of another (small) company - hardly notable. Could not find other sources. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC) No longer a penguin (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG; several source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete first this is nonsense: "X is a virtual lab, the residents of which..." So.. virtual scientists? Ugh. Entirely SPS. Wikipedia is a not a lab website. Fails GNG Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to redirect if desired. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tweet (giraffe)[edit]

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

Article (almost) meets WP:ONEEVENT. All coverage about this animal is related to a single event, his death - absolutely no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found that is unrelated to that one event. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable flash in the pan.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedaic subject. Loopy30 (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent and reliable sources to establish notability. Morphdog (t - c) 20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm skeptical about using the WP:ONEEVENT standard because it's a subsection of a page called "Notability (people)" and Tweet was not a person. Further, it seems like it's being applied to the fact that this (admittedly terrible) article only dwells on one event, not whether or not the subject is genuinely not known for anything else. One listed exception is "Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." On its own, Tweet's tragic end doesn't confer notability. But he was also a cast member of a movie that made over $100 million and starred in multiple Toys "R" Us commercials. Those two additional facts gained Tweet international attention and if this article were kept, they'd obviously be added. So this is a weird situation because the article fails ONEEVENT but its subject doesn't. City Of Silver 00:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zookeeper_(film)#Production where the reliably sourced information about this giraffe already appears. Clearly not one event, because the giraffe appeared in a film and was a business mascot, but the sources in the article and through a Google search don't make it pass the WP:GNG. There is enough to justify it's inclusion in the movie page though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zookeeper_(film)#Production - it's not like he predicted the world cup. Cabayi (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Plantdrew (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samesame.com.au[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NWEB. Some mentions in passing, yes, one source is a rewritten press relaese... if there are any reliable, in-depth sources discussing this website's significance, please showcase them here - I couldn't find any. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunately does not pass WP:GNG for this topic. Lack of WP:IS and WP:RS at this time to support notablility claims.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as varying international publications namedrop SameSame, but nothing to warrant Web Criteria. Secondly, site is no longer active. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Social Economy Forum[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Sfdiversity (creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). SO now we are here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent references to indicate notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 16:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Zohar[edit]

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

Delete - Meets criteria for deletion via notable for only one event. Reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a single event, the person is to remain, and likely remain, a low-profile individual, and the event for which there is coverage is not significant.

Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no visible evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's attracted mentions for other portraits, and was covered widely in the press when he created a second portrait of Princess Diana, imagining her as she would be at 52. This was the subject of one of the cited sources, but the sources weren't being used fully. I was able to add some biographical information as well as a couple of other portraits (but I removed the Middle Temple group portrait since I couldn't find an independent source for it). There is probably additional press coverage of his career offline; I also didn't use a Daily Mail article (here) or an Indonesian source dependent on the Daily Mail (here) both arising from the second Princess Diana portrait. With press coverage on two separate occasions plus several other works noted in reliable sources, I believe he squeaks by. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - 'Probably additional coverage offline', is the same thing as no coverage at all. As far as I can discern, there is nothing notable about the artist and their works at all. The vast majority of the coverage in the press is related to the celebrity of Diana herself, not the artist. In addition, this coverage is only related to a single event. Even the more recent articles are just in reference to the original event in the 1990's when Zohar painted the portrait of Diana. The only new source added to the article is that Zohar had a student, something which in itself is not very notable for an artist, and that he has painted other portraits, none of which (the portraits) have any sort of notoriety. In addition, there's nothing to suggest that the artist's second portrait of Diana was, 'widely', covered in the press. Although, I suppose this depends on ones definition of widely. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to point out that equating the possibility of offline coverage with no coverage at all is simply wrong. We are on the internet, but we accept offline sources. Moreover, The Times is now completely paywalled, and other UK newspapers are hard for me to access in search (I used to have a subscription to British Newspapers Archive through the Wikipedia Library but didn't renew it because it never seemed to have anything, even articles I'd seen in hard copy in the past) - so there may be online sources that someone else has access to. I presume you performed a WP:BEFORE search? If so, surely you noted that there are two portraits of Princess Diana? That was not reflected in the article, and yes, I would call the coverage of the second one wide - I added a Spanish newspaper, and notice above that I didn't add the Daily Mail or the Indonesian (!) website based on its report, since we no longer accept it as a citable source. Again, I'm sure there were other press reports on that, and far more than the one on the first portrait. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do agree that equating the possibility of coverage to no coverage existing is not correct. A more fair assessment is that 'might be coverage' is not valuable when considering notoriety, since in fact there might also not be coverage. It's an empty statement and actual citations of the offline coverage are what is valuable. In terms of wide coverage, I would not consider one Spanish newspaer and the Daily Mail wide coverage (you mentioned yourself the Indonesian article is just a reference to the Daily Mall resource), but, as I mentioned earlier, I am not sure who is to decide what wide coverage is. In addition, the reason for the majority of this press is not the artist, but the subject, Princess Diana. It seems more appropriate for a subject like this to be a sub-section under Princess Diana regarding portraits of her. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article seems to have only made it onto Wikipedia due to creation by subjects son. Not sure if this matters, but, it would imply some bias. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk)

Comment in response. That's assuming bad faith; I think you have a stronger argument for deletion if you stick to the notability point you made in your nomination. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response. The mention of the source of the Author of the article is related to the notability point, not another argument. That is to say, I think it is something to consider when determining if the subject should have an article on Wikipedia. The fact that the Diana portrait had existed for quite some time before the article was created by a relative might lend credence to the idea of the artist themselves not being notable, as one might imagine they would have had an article created by an independent source who was aware of their notoriety. This is of course not necessarily true, and the subject could have been notable, and no one saw it fit to make an article for them. It would be in bad faith to assume that it was only created because of the relation, but I think it would also be short sighted to not consider the source of the creation of the article. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Artist made a nice painting of Princess Diana, but does not seem to have any other coverage, museum shows, monographs,in-depth scholarly articles, or museum collections. To my way of thinking having a couple news releases is not enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to East Bergholt. Among the various suggestions, redirect gets votes and is provided with an argument. That NGEO makes anything notable is questionable, and not every human habitation is notable. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East End, Suffolk[edit]

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

totally unsourced. there seems to be nothing that suggests this actually exists over and above google maps. the grange country and caravan park gives its address as Colchester and i could find nothing about the butcher's. the pub used as an illustration is in East Bergholt according to their website. here Fails WP:GEOLAND Domdeparis (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Bergholt, as it falls within that civil parish so can be mentioned there. It appears on Ordnance Survey maps, so I think it does exist as a (very small) settlement, but it clearly isn't significant enough to warrant a separate article. Jellyman (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the redirect suggestion. Domdeparis (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of outcome, a hatnote is needed to East End (Long Island). – Train2104 (t • c) 01:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Both articles are sufficiently disambiguated. No-one's going to end up in Suffolk looking for Long Island!~~ (Whoops, should have read "East End of Long Island ... New York's Suffolk County" first). It does need adding to East End (disambiguation) though - I'll do that. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it appears on Ordnance Survey maps it is a legally recognised place and hence meets WP:NGEO. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do you have the proof that it appears on the OS maps? Domdeparis (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Domdeparis: - it's there, just east of East Bergholt. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your reply gave me an idea so I checked the OS website and I managed to find it but only with the name East End Lane Colchester and not East End, Suffolk itself. I am not sure what legally recognised means does the fact that it exists on the OS map mean it is legally recognised? On the OS maps even individual farm-houses are noted does that make them legally recognised and thus notable enough for a page with no other coverage? Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a human habitation and we keep all such. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards future demonstrations of notability. Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Holland[edit]

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

The sole reference merely mentions Holland in passing ("Bonnet has three teammates who graduated from FBISD schools – redshirt freshman defensive back Jordan Holland...") and as far as I can tell, he hasn't played a single game as a Gladiator due to injury. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fail WP:NGRIDIRON. Can't find a ref that shows him as playing a single game. If he ends up playing a game, he would meet it, so he may meet it in the future, but not for now. bojo | talk 16:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, the season hasn't started yet. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 16:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian Americans[edit]

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

Bare stub which doesn't actually correspond to the real topic. While there is a small (~300) community of people in the United States who identify themselves as ethnically Silesian, that is not the same thing as merely having ancestors from the geographic region of Silesia -- the region was historically populated by ethnic Slavs and ethnic Germans and ethnic Jews, with very little intermarriage between the groups. Identifying with a Silesian ethnicity, however, is a Slavic phenomenon, not a German or Jewish one -- for Germans and Jews, "Silesian" is not a distinct subtype of German or Jewish identity, but a purely geographic marker with no more ethnic significance than "Mecklenburg German" or "Volhynian Jew". But most of the people listed here are either Germans or Jews -- Kevin Hannan is the only one here with any indication of a connection to the Slavic community of Silesia, and even in his case the Silesian ethnicity is just stated and not actually supported by a source. So a person is not a "Silesian American" just because they or some of their ancestors were born in Opole or Świdnica -- they're "Silesian American" only if they or their ancestors were Slavs. And furthermore, the article doesn't actually contain any content besides the list of people who mostly don't belong here. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually source and substance an article about the real topic, but this as constituted has almost nothing to do with the actual ethnic group of Silesian Americans. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This feels like a case of "AFD isn't cleanup." As it is right now, I think this article needs work, but I think if Italian Americans is okay, this is okay too. South Nashua (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Americans is (a) substantive, (b) reliably sourced, and (c) actually about the topic that correctly corresponds to its title. None of those things is true of this article. And "AFD is not cleanup" or not, if this article were simply cleaned up to remove the people whose names don't belong in it, it would become immediately speediable under criterion A3 as containing virtually no content beyond a simple restatement of the title. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're an expert on this, WP:SOFIXIT. South Nashua (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no substance or sourcing available to "fix" it with. Fixing it would entail stripping the inappropriate inclusions from the list, the end, with nothing left to hang an article on. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's already Silesian-American Corporation and around a dozen pages on the Silesian-American category. I am willing to assume there is more out there beyond that. South Nashua (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even Silesian-American Corporation offers no sourced evidence that it means Silesian as an ethnicity. It's called that because its parent corporation was based in Katowice, not because anybody associated with it is sourceable as ethnically Silesian — all of the individual people named in that article are German, and not even Germans-from-Silesia but Germans-from-Germany involved in taking over the company after Germany invaded Poland in WWII. Which mean that it's also a geographic marker and not an ethnic one, and thus has no substantive body text relevance that could possibly be expanded to anything more than a "see also" entry either. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The fact of the existence of a very small group of people call themselves 'Silesian' does not make for WP:N. Arguments for keeping the article amount to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSIMPORTANT... Oh, and, of course you can add WP:NOR as the primary policy being invoked. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe this term is, well, used anywhere. It seems to be a Wikipedia-invention, stemming from Category:Silesian American (both the article and the category were created by the same editor at the same time around 2013). This seems OR at best. While there are of course Silesians there is no Silesian disapora in the US or anywhere else. PS. I am from Silesia :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the equivalent German descent category, because at the date of emigration Silesia was part of Germany and earlier Prussia. All the surnames look as if they are German ones (not Polish) to me. The company which attempted to manage certain interests in Silesia during WWII may not fit well, but is rather differnet from the present content anyway. Silesian is not an ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just gone through the notables list, and only Hans Georg Dehmelt remains (by virtue of where he was born according to the date, although he is identified as being a German-born: he's been 'claimed' here and here). The rest were completely unsourced, so there's nothing left to merge. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as alternate ethnography. Not encyclopedically relevant. Despite being a micro-stub, it still manages to be original research cited to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only found 10 results from Google Books. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom as above editors, especially Iryna Harpy who summed up the rationale for deletion very succinctly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GFriend. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yerin[edit]

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

Not passing Wikipedia:Notability (music) and lacks reliable references. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the sources I found describing her at any length, was based on her girl group, not specifically her.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GFriend. Deletion will create a redlink that is just bait to re-create the article (actually, the nominator could have just boldly tried the redirect route...). Montanabw^(talk) 08:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is a bizarre AfD. The article appears to have been merged into Singapore by its creator during the course of the AfD. I'm going to boldly redirect the article to Singapore, but that should not be taken as an indication of consensus to inhibit future action on this article. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 16:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Island[edit]

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

Article only describes a term used to refer to Singapore. Not notable enough to require separate article. Some information provided here could be copied to Singapore or related articles if needed. RoCo^(talk) 17:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just merge it into Singapore then? Oneultralamewhiteboy (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you do not contest this deletion, I suggest you do it. RoCo^(talk) 18:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Singapore. Agree certainly not enough for a article, but worth mentioning in Singapore. MB 04:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A notable topic and concept that has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. See below for some of them; more sources are available in addition to these. An entire chapter in a book is devoted to the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding those references into the article? Maybe we could find more pages to link to Intelligent Island and maybe this page wouldn't need to be deleted. For now, I merged Intelligent Island with Singapore and linked back to the article. Oneultralamewhiteboy (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Northamerica1000: and others, The creator @Oneultralamewhiteboy: has merged the article into Singapore and has requested deletion here. Before marking for deletion under CSD WP:G7, I want to make sure no one is contesting the deletion. Thank you. RoCo^(talk) 01:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is for the article to be retained. It can be expanded from available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reagal Films[edit]

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

Non notable company. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Plus, most of the article is about A Day With SpongeBob SquarePants: The Movie, which fails WP:NFF --The Wrong Tea (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a production company "best known" (according to the article) for an "unreleased film originally slated to be released on November 22, 2011". :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per The Wrong Tea and fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Sweet. Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Retta[edit]

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

BLP that fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. should redirect to The Sweet -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sweet If he was genuinely a member of multiple notable bands, then this would cross the threshold of WP:MUSICBIO. However, it does not appear to be the case that he was a regular, full member of notable bands other than Sweet. MartinJones (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Europe! (The Fuzztones album)[edit]

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

A non-charting live album with no credible reviews or sources. Discogs can be discounted. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 03:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not conform to notablity for albums, with enough information on main page Wt is this (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manmohan Vaidya[edit]

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

per WP:POLITICIAN. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (palaver) 17:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A political party's campaign chair could qualify for a Wikipedia article on WP:GNG grounds if he could be reliably sourced to a significant degree of media coverage — but he's not automatically entitled to one just because he exists, and one news article is not enough sourcing to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Google news link above provides several news articles about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Warscape[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. This is a game that is yet to be released and unsurprisingly it has no independent references. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some sources, such as This one, is not maintained by its publishers, but simply attributed to them. ILMXPrime (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of independent coverage. Even if the sites publishing information are not controlled by the game's publishers, they are merely publishing the game makers' advertising. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WikiDan61: Would a stats page that displays how many unique views that the game has received work as a source? I have recently added a couple of those. ILMXPrime (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. A reliable video game source search returned 0 results. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete moved to my sandbox until more independent sources are found ILMXPrime (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the article's author has accepted the deletion outcome, can we move this to a WP:SNOW delete and move on? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While he might not meet the parameters of NFOOTY, the wider consensus appears to be that he meets GNG. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark O'Sullivan footballer[edit]

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

Not played in a fully professional league. Echetus Xe 22:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Also a BLPPROD in its current state. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the sources outlined below. Not the most notable footballer, but his career trajectory has received coverage outside of routine match reporting. Happy to accept that this is a rare example of a low level footballer meeting GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While WP:NFOOTBALL does have issues with top-flight footballers in the League of Ireland Premier Division, (where some individual players may not be fully professional), the subject in this case objectively meets WP:GNG. The subject has been covered in various reliable sources, where that coverage has been non-trivial. So, in honesty, I'm unclear on the basis on which it is stated that GNG is not demonstrated. For example: Independent News & Media, The Journal,Sun Newspaper Group, etc. In short - article needs better/more sources? Absolutely! Subject fails WP:NFOOTY? Maybe. Subject fails WP:GNG? Nope! Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets ignore the fact that the news hits link is completely useless as most of them seem to refer to a hurler (or in some instances Ronnie O'Sullivan) rather than the footballer, and those that do include a large number of routine match reports, the links you provide are hardly GNG:

Independent News & Media - most of this article is not about the player, and not even about football. The element that is is basically just about his transfer between clubs with a few brief playing career facts.
The Journal - again is just a routine transfer report with a quote from his manager spouting the usual platitudes mangers do when a player leaves the club. There is essentially no real journalism here that could allow this article to be deemed significant coverage.
Sun Newspaper Group - Aside fro mthe fact that this is basically routine transfer news, there is essentially no coverage whatsoever in this extremely brief report.

Additionally, all three sources refer to the same transfer, so can hardly be added together to show GNG. Can you provide a source which shows and in depth career summary or a reasonably lengthy interview with the player? Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi. Thanks for your note. RE "Search returns articles on hurler as well". Yup. I didn't take the time to construct a search term which would preclude other people with a similar name. RE "Some of coverage is usual platitudes from manager". In honesty, pretty much all football coverage is of that nature. RE "Examples provided refer to the same transfer". Yup. Again, I didn't take the time to expand the search - just noted that a very quick search returned coverage broadly indicative of GNG. RE "An interview specifically related to the subject". Here's one or two. Although both are of the "usual platitudes from manager" variety. RE "NFOOTY (incl 'competitive senior international match at confederation level')" it might be worth noting that apparently the subject was capped for the international side.[4] Presumably this cap against England amateurs.[5] Unsure of relevance to NN myself. In the meantime I've sought to improve the tonal/sourcing issues in the article itself. Guliolopez (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this is not an interview with the player, which is what I was talking about. It is an article in which again there are some quotes from his manager before a much longer section on the club, the league and upcoming fixtures. Can you point to any article where someone has actually sat down with the player and talked to him to produce an interview or who has written a dedicated piece about his career? Searching I can't find anything, which is not surprising given this is a player who played mainly amateur football before a brief career in a semi-pro / borderline pro league. Regarding international caps, these are only valid per NFOOTY for senior international appearances. Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE "amateur caps don't count towards NFOOTY". That's fine. Was just adding it to the pile. RE "interview with the subject themselves". Sure. How about this interview seemingly captured arising from a sports writers' award received. Guliolopez (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of what I'm talking about, but it's really for a very minor achievement. I think you'd need to show a fair number of them before it would really indicate notability, but its definitely the sort of thing that helps. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE "that's what I'm talking about". OK. Cool. RE "need more interviews before it'd indicate GNG". In honesty it's not my interpretation of GNG that sources only indicate notability if they are interviews with a subject. Rather than (for example) interviews or coverage about a subject. RE "*you'd* need to show". In honesty I'm unsure how this comes down to me personally. My motivation for contributing to the discuss was the "gap" I noted between the "no sources indicating GNG" comments, and what I saw in my own quick search. What I have done personally is addressed a number of issues in the article (most of which were, to my own eye, more concerning or AfD-worthy than possible NN issues). As these are largely addressed, and as I'm not really seeing any remaining GNG issues to cover, I'm unlikely to invest much more time on it myself. If the community feels that the article and subject don't meet the guidelines, then I'm not overly concerned. However, my own recommendation still leans towards keep. On GNG grounds. Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - partially per Guliolopez's comment, partially because I think this article just has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing for top flight Irish club Cork City and being at the top of the game in Ireland hence playing in the League of Ireland Premier Division and even playing in Uefa competition passes N:Footy surely? Never-the-less, I've seen enough on a google search to pass WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govvy (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 10:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NFOOTY is perhaps not the only criteria to consider. No thoughts on GNG? Guliolopez (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said and demonstrated in previous AfDs, I could write well-sourced articles on players who play for the club I support (A.F.C. Sudbury, currently playing at the seventh level in England), but I don't because I have no illusions that they're notable. As far as I'm concerned what actually makes players notable is the league they play in or playing internationally. Number 5 7 13:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for the note. RE "As I've said and demonstrated in previous AfDs". Am afraid I don't follow yourself and all other related AfDs, so am not previously familiar with your own personal perspective. Apologies. RE "as far as I'm concerned what makes players notable is the league they play in". I guess that's your own perspective. But the project perspective does generally rely on other criteria. Including SIGCOV and GNG. RE "or playing internationally". The subject here has played internationally. Including for the Irish equivalent of the England national football C team. Does that mean the subject meets your own personal criteria? Guliolopez (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, playing for England C doesn't make someone notable – full national team cap or appearance at the Olympics as per WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 15:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "playing for England C doesn't make someone notable". That's fine. I wasn't suggesting that (inherently) it did. Rather, there was an apparent implication that the underlying WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:GNG and related NN criteria shouldn't be applied. And, instead, only a specific interpretation of a single criteria (NFOOTY) should be applied. And hence I was trying to understand what interpretation of that criteria was in question. In honesty I'm still unsure why GNG is overlooked in this way. Guliolopez (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GNG is met, barely, with articles like this (yes, it's just the top third of that), and this. Nfitz (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG due to enough credible sources. --Jimbo^[online] 20:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Milani[edit]

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

BLP article with no sources. Prod notice was applied for lack of sources back in December 2016, and removed by SPA account User talk:Trijeets who is the man himself. Two external links, mention man by name, provide no other information. scope_creep (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep.~~ STRONG KEEP. While I'm definitely not a fan of using the project for self-promotion, as User talk:Trijeets, clearly has, if he is the subject, the fact remains that a cursory Google search identified the subject on several sites. Perhaps, rather than removing it, we just slap it with an unsourced tag. Or, just list it as an unsourced stub. X4n6 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the sources to support a Weak Keep. scope_creep (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you do at least a cursory Google search before nominating? Or did you just nominate based on no sources in the BLP? Because if you had, you would have seen: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many more that I could include. So much so in fact, that after this review, I'm changing my vote to STRONG KEEP. Subject easily passes WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and even WP:SCHOLAR and WP:AUTHOR. X4n6 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator scope_creep (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technology development in Ukraine in the 21st century[edit]

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

Unsourced and very vaguely-written essay, clearly falls under WP:NOTESSAY. PROD removed by article creator without comment. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This doesn't look like an attempt at an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a school essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
DElete ESSAY with no references and no categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the above --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant self promotion, non-RS sources, CSD removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar ramchandani[edit]

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

Wasted PROD. Concern was that this article fails WP:NOTRESUME and/or WP:NOTDIR. I'm not convinced it meets A7 because of the "Activities" links provided, but won't be upset if another admin disagrees. May also fail WP:NBIO. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant self promotion. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Ajf773 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. These are not reliable sources and no claim of notability - just passing mentions of the subject. Should have been a CSD but that was removed...Garchy (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NSF (file format)[edit]

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

Non-notable (due to lack of third-party sources), and has also been entirely unsourced since its creation in 2003. The article was also way too heavy on technical specification without explaining why it was important/needed to be stated (which I removed in some recent edits). I nominate this article to be redirected to chiptune, or any other article if somebody can think of a better one. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being unsourced for thirteen years is a pretty strong indicator that GNG-meeting sources aren't coming. Between it being completely unsourced, and other Nintendo hardware-related articles being generally pretty well maintained, makes me think there wouldn't be any worth merging. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was request withdrawn by the original nominator. (non-admin closure). ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 shooting of Paris police officers[edit]

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

This article, though its content is notable and suitable, would be more fitting as a list, not as an article as it is now. I suggest its content be merged with a list form. Geo ^talk 20:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has to be the quickest I've ever seen an AfD being filed. We cannot make WP:CRYSTAL guesses about enduring notability. This could be big, this may not be big. But I say we let this story develop in a few days' or weeks' time and then touch on the issue again when it's more appropriate. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pointing out that Geojournal has been making lots of deletion proposals this evening, including two within a minute on Members of Parliament with referenced articles! How much WP:BEFORE could have been done? Calm down and stop this damage. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't THAT sketchy? Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorically, I'm retracting my proposal as this is best left so for now and will be best left later for the creation of a list. Geo ^talk 20:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7. So Why 19:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly Known As Simon[edit]

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

Non-notable. Does not meet NBIO or the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Ameer[edit]

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

Subject in this article meets WP:SINGLEEVENT and it also passes WP:TOOSOON as the event is yet to occur (i.e. movie for which the subject is being considered significant is yet to be released) TopCipher (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete acting notability requires multiple significant roles, one role is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is being the first transgender actor to take a lead role in an Indian film not a valid case for notability? Spiderone 09:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet notablity requirements Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Quiapo road rage incident[edit]

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

As per WP:SENSATION. This incident is just one of the occasional road rage incidents sensationalized by the local media. Isolated crime. Also fails WP:LASTING. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of good sources. coverage seems extensive. the article is ok. Overall it covers WP:COVERAGE.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Hariboneagle927. This is an isolated incident that only get covered heavily because of sensationalist local media, and much of a crime being fit for a headline in a tabloid. Plus, this crime has no historical importance, as like Hariboneagle927 said.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Comment This incident may reflect safety and security of cyclists in the Philippines. See my comments below.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
possible keep case is, in fact, continuing to draw some atteniton in the national conversation on gun crime. gNews search: [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Numerous road rage incidents have occurred all over the world. Outside of media sensationalism, I can't see how this seems to be a notable incident. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally run of the mill. My road rage incident in Quiapo consisted of puking my guts out from motion sickness due to the snarled traffic from the back seat of a taxicab. The traffic is horrific there during Pasko.Bearian (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A memorial installed where the biker was killed might speak of its significance to the local cycling community at least.1 2 --RioHondo (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:LASTING. This isn't a particularly notable event – road rage incidents happen all the time. There are a few references, but mostly to local news stories with brief coverage. Laurdecl ^talk 07:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On a serious note: I'm not sure anyone who has not been there can comprehend just how common road rage is in Manila, especially crowded areas such as Quiapo. To list a single incident in 2016 is to downplay all of the hundreds of other incidents. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, precisely why this incident isn't really notable than any other incidents. It just happens that this particular case went viral in social media. At best, the national media covered the incident to bring light to a prevailing wider issue (Road rage in Metro Manila) like how there is a shock incident every New Years Eve in the country to highlight the issue of illegal firecrackers/indiscriminate firing of guns resulting to stray bullet incidents. Although a generalized article not focusing on a particular hyped incident on the issues I mentioned might be notable enough for an article.

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the traffic congestion in Metro Manila, which cause many road rage accidents, the Quiapo incident may reflect security of cyclists, along with many accidents involving motor vehicle collisions with bicycles. An article discussing bicyclists' safety in the Philippines can be created to explain the issues they face, and mention incidents reflecting them, if sources explicitly state that fact. Yes, bicyclists in the Philippines face safety and security issues from undisciplined drivers, and only a few roads have bicycle-friendly facilities, like bike lanes or bicycle priority, however many drivers still ignore themy, and cyclists are at risk.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is detailed enough and does not resemble a news article, though it might need some fleshing out, i.e. expansion. As is, the event is still developing as the suspect is in police custody. --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Violates WP:LASTING.Winged Blades^Godric 16:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Godric. Even if the effects of the event itself are not lasting, the article may still meet the main notability guideline, especially GNG. If not, then WP:Verifiability#Notability or WP:GUIDES, which says to give some occasional exceptions to the NEVENTS and/or N. George Ho (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing significant or noteworthy here. Sorry but crime happens, it'll get sensationalized in the media for a time but there's no lasting significance of this event. ValarianB (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MILL crime, coverage and impact are nothing out of the ordinary for such. Sandstein 19:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 16:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NGW GenX Championship[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling tournament. Has received very limited coverage, mostly in lesser sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. - Mr X 19:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable championship of New Generation Wrestling, a British professional wrestling promotion, so its notable. TheBuilder456 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The titles for NGW don't need their own pages having the history on the main page is sufficient no need to have this here. Browndog91 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Championship history can be listed on the main page as is done for GFW belts on Global Force Wrestling.LM2000 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back into New Generation Wrestling, where the information was until recently. Doesn't meet WP:GNG on its own. Nikki♥311 04:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 16:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peering.cz[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP (no independent proof it's the largest exchange in Central Europe, if that even matters) as well as WP:GNG. All I could find independent of the subject was promotional junk like this. Sources like the e15.cz piece look promotional, too, just restating what the corporate masters dictated. As this was created by an SPA I have doubts that this wasn't a paid-for article. There's not even a Czech-language version! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made some improvements to the article. The closest to a WP:RS I got was czechcrunch.cz (itself a play on TechCrunch), which is mentioned a few times on the Czech Wikipedia. This web-page mentions peering.cz several times, but as far as I can see (which is not far in Czech) with trivialities that could just be material forwarded directly from peering.cz. I guess peering.cz can maybe remain mentioned in the two other pages that currently mention it, just not as a link to its own page. The one of these two places that has actual numbers on peering.gz also cites a self-published source, though. Lklundin (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is coverage that appears to be from reliable independent sources: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Gab4gab (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gab4gab: I'm not sure any of these sources are reliable. As Halibutt points out, numbers one and two are the same promotional piece written by the same guy, hosted in two different places. Maybe you should have read them. That said I don't know if I would connote general notability or WP:SIGCOV from the remaining three. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Halibutt and K kisses: You are listed at WP:Translators_available#Czech-to-English and have contributed recently. Could you help out here, by checking if the above listed sources do indeed make some non-trivial metion of Peering.cz, and if so, if any of them can be used as source for the information currently in this article! Either way, many thanks for your contributions! Lklundin (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Lklundin: can't comment on the other two sources as they seem not to be independent, but the E15 piece seems to genuinely treat the subject as notable. It doesn't prove its' claim of being "the largest", but it mentions the company serves, among others, Google and Orange. The same author seems to be covering the company's creation ([12]), their expansion on home market (here and here), their expansion into Slovakia (here). The matter is covered also by this piece in Lupa.cz, which seems to be a decent source. All in all, I would treat the topic as notable, but the way it is now - its' notability is not clear from the article. Which is what matters. //Halibu tt 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Halibutt's comments. If all those sources cover what you say they cover, then it would seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Quality of the article now doesn't matter per WP:NEXIST. It's the existence of good sources out there to determine notability that matters. The article content can always be fixed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems the tone of this discussion changed about halfway through. Any new comments about the new sourcing claims?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Chris troutman: Yes, I see now that two articles are the same. I feel bad that I was so easily fooled by the author name appearing at the beginning of one and the end of the other. I attempted to locate independent coverage better than the junk article you located. The articles appeared be independent and have coverage of Peering.cz. I'm not aware any connection between the authors and the subject organization. It doesn't matter if the articles are promotional. It's Wikipedia articles that require NPOV. Sources that promote things are just fine to establish notability. Although I said they were reliable sources on reflection I have to admit I have no information on their reliability. Gab4gab (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gab4gab: "Sources that promote things are just fine to establish notability." I don't think this is so. WP:N requires that sources be independent. I assume if a piece is promotional it was bought, and therefore not independent. If we had a reliable source that gave glowing coverage that would be fine but since I don't know anything about these websites I don't know how much to trust them. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily agree that there's a lot we don't know. Gab4gab (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After the comments of Halibutt who can actually understand the sources, I retract my 'Delete' vote in favour of a 'keep' vote. Lklundin (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 16:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NGW Tag Team Championship[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling tournament. Has received very limited coverage, mostly in lesser sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. - Mr X 19:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable championship of New Generation Wrestling, a British professional wrestling promotion, so its notable. TheBuilder456 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The titles for NGW don't need their own pages having the history on the main page is sufficient no need to have this here. Browndog91 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Championship history can be listed on the main page as is done for GFW belts on Global Force Wrestling.LM2000 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back into New Generation Wrestling, where the information was until recently. Doesn't meet WP:GNG on its own. Nikki♥311 04:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 16:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NGW Undisputed Championship[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling tournament. Has received very limited coverage, mostly in lesser sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. - Mr X 19:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable championship of New Generation Wrestling, a British professional wrestling promotion, so its notable. TheBuilder456 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The titles for NGW don't need their own pages having the history on the main page is sufficient no need to have this here. Browndog91 18:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Championship history can be listed on the main page as is done for GFW belts on Global Force Wrestling.LM2000 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back into New Generation Wrestling, where the information was until recently. Doesn't meet WP:GNG on its own. Nikki♥311 04:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Progression Series Tournament[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling tournament. Has received very limited coverage, mostly in lesser sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. - Mr X 18:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable tournament of the Progress Wrestling, a British professional wrestling promotion, so its notable. TheBuilder456 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer some evidence that this is notable since currently there is a consensus at a separate AFD that Progress Wresting itself is not notable and at this rate will be deleted as well.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ops must have read an AFD for a different article.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Nikki♥311 01:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - this is a notable tournament of the Progress Wrestling and because Progress is partner of wwe and is notable TheBuilder123 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.252.244.38 (talk) [reply]

Comment - I'm striking this duplicate vote. Nikki♥311 18:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And just because WWE and Progress Wrestling are notable doesn't mean everything they're associated with is.LM2000 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong Style 16 Tournament[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling tournament. Has received very limited coverage, mostly in lesser sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. - Mr X 18:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable tournament of the Progress Wrestling, a British professional wrestling promotion, so its notable. TheBuilder456 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Nikki♥311 01:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - this is a notable tournament of the Progress Wrestling and because Progress is partner of wwe and is notable TheBuilder123 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.252.244.38 (talk) [reply]

Comment - I'm striking this duplicate vote. Nikki♥311 18:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chitrali keyboard[edit]

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

not a notable keyboard. cited source are not reliable enough to be used. created for self-promotion by Rehmat Aziz Chitrali Saqib (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am amaze that First generation of this calculator came in 1996.Sunny315 (talk) 08:00, 230April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Not that this isn't interesting, but there doesn't seem to be sufficient notability; as it stands, the article is a promotional history of a product, complete with eulogistic blurbs, and I don't believe it can go anywhere else.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar Language Movement[edit]

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

Page created for self-promotion by Rehmat Aziz Chitrali. no mention in the reliable sources of any such movement. Saqib (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research as it does not seem to be covered in reliable sources. See also my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khowar Academy (3rd nomination). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is some independent news coverage of political organization around Khowar language (e.g. in Dawn, The Nation), but it's pretty thin. The sources I've seen do not refer to a named "Khowar Language Movement", but to Chitralis or to political action generally. I'm also soured by activist editing at Khowar Academy. If the article is kept, it will need to be policed for neutral point of view. Cnilep (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progress World Cup[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling tournament. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources. Also fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as far as I can tell.- Mr X 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC) - Mr X 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of exactly the same reasons as above, fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT these pages may have been created by a meat puppet or sock puppet:

Keep - this is a notable tournament of the Progress Wrestling, a British professional wrestling promotion, so its notable. TheBuilder456 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tournament doesn't meet WP:GNG. Just because Progress Wrestling is notable, doesn't mean every tournament is (WP:NOTINHERITED). Nikki♥311 01:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 86.3.174.49 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting the other articles which have since been bundled. As I noted on the AfD for William Eaver (wrestler): "You can't inherit notability even from the most notable subjects and it wasn't that long ago that an AfD on Progress Wrestling closed with no consensus."LM2000 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the other bundled articles should be deleted for the same reasons. - Mr X 19:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - this is a notable tournament of the Progress Wrestling and because Progress is partner of wwe and is notablie TheBuilder123 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.252.244.38 (talk) comment moved by Domdeparis (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you know what I'm sick and tired of this, what are your problem with me, my articles and my contributions because I have not guts, because I'm not welcomed in Wikipedia, because it's not notable just tell me once and for all, Do you know yes ThePerstigeousTalker13 was my old account but I created this because I forgot the password and I didn't registered any email. If you have any problem that mentioned above just tell me once and for all, if you want to block me, just block me, I'm telling the truth and that's what it matters. I prefer an hard and rough truth than a delusional lie

Thanks for your time

TheBuilder456 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The belts can be merged with Progress Wrestling, as is done on Global Force Wrestling but they're not independently notable. Your contribution is appreciated but you have to follow guidelines, including WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it personally especially as they are not your articles they belong to the community; Everyone is welcome on Wikipedia but as LM2000 we all have to abide by the guidelines your explanation for the multiple accounts are fine but what is not really fine is signing another keep vote! when you are logged out with a fictional account User:TheBuilder123. When you make a comment on a talk page and don't sign it correctly a bot automatically adds your signature even when you try to fake the signature. You have done this three times and this is not at all ok. Domdeparis (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catriona Bhatia[edit]

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

Non-notable local councillor and failed candidate for a general election. Tagged for notability for seven years. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of national news media coverage, quite sufficient to meet WP:SECONDARY. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but as a local politician cleary doesnt meet the notability criteria for a politician ref Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local councillors are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just for serving on local councils, but the sourcing here is not strong enough to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Of the eight references here, three are WP:ROUTINE coverage in the local media where such coverage is merely expected to exist for all councillors regardless of whether they clear our notability requirements or not; another three are in Scotland-wide media outlets' local news sections for the specific local area where she's a councillor, and thus is still simply routine and expected; and of the remaining two, one is a mere table of election results in a national newspaper's comprehensive local election results section in which every councillor or council candidate across the entire United Kingdom would have a "profile" with as much information as that, and thus is still merely routine and expected. And Times #3, the only source in the entire bunch which suggests the possibility of more than purely routine and expected coverage, is (a) a deadlink whose content is unverifiable, and (b) strongly implied by its headline to have actually been in the context of who her father is rather than in the context of anything she did in her own right. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED — so if there's not enough substance or sourcing to deem her notable because of who she is, then she doesn't get a free pass over the bar just for being the daughter of someone who does. Simply put, none of this is enough. Bearcat (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I repaired the dead link to the Times article, which interview both her and her father. Try WP:GOOGLETESTing her - there's enough press out there to make it clear that Ms. Bhatia has much more coverage than the average councillor. Personally, I wonder if WP:NOTINHERITED is a better argument for deletion because it's not clear to me that Ms. Bhatia would get all this press coverage if she was not David Steel's daughter. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article doesn't provide evidence of genuine notability. A fair amount of coverage in independent media, but much of it stems from being David Steel's daughter rather than anything notable in her own right. All mentions of her first establish her family ties - if anything, this would warrant a paragraph in a "family" section on David Steel's page rather than a page of it's own. A large number of sources refer to a single event - her losing her council post. In this respect I don't think she has met WP:POLITICIAN as she has not received any significant press coverage beyond this single event (see WP:SINGLEEVENT). The guidance stipulated for single-event notables would seem to being towards a redirect into David Steel's article, although I personally don't think the story is really notable enough for that. The fact that she has been elected to an office and held a cabinet role as a result of it does not on its own establish her notability. Nor does her candidacy in the 2017 General Election. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HART Legal[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs all focus on one employee being nominated by a local paper. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is relevant. Provided sources from both local and provincial sources. I am still working on building out the page from a stub article. This law firm gets a lot of media attention in BC. This article may not be interesting to those outside of the area, but is still interesting to those in the legal profession. I am not involved with HART Legal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronanattili (talk • contribs)

Delete. Seems to be local coverage only, does not meet WP:CORP. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No convincing indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I've blocked the article creator and a number of socks and WP:MEAT that were clearly using Wikipedia to promote the company. This related article will likely need review as well as it was created by the same sock for the same purpose.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should really be CSD'd, due to it's lack of notability. —JJ Be rs 15:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CSD was my initial thought, but the statement "The company was the first law firm in Canada to franchise across Canada and into the USA" might well have been taken as indicating significance, hence the AfD. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PNT Singing Idol[edit]

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

A highly promotional article on an unremarkable talent competition with no indications of notability or significance; fails WP:NORG for lack of significant coverage that discusses the topic directly and in detail. The sources listed in the article are either local to the area (i.e. "local resident does well") or non independent of the subject.

Copy contains: "The top annual prize is a round trip air fare from Metro Vancouver to the Philippines and a $1000 cash prize" etc, strongly suggesting lack of notability for this local contest. First AfD (2 October 2016) closed as "No consensus", apparently for lack of participation. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something like this is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists, but I'm not seeing the depth of coverage about it that would be needed for it to clear WP:GNG. The references here are either unreliable sources or glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, not coverage that's substantively about it — and my favourite of all is reference #6, where the headline given in the citation is "Filipino Fiesta in BC" but the headline on the article if you follow the URL is "IBM launches new generation mainframe". This is not the depth of coverage it needs per either NMUSIC or ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with misgivings, because it's a well-put-together article - but I agree, if it can't meet either WP:MUSIC or WP:CORPDEPTH then it shouldn't be kept here. It almost meets WP:MUSIC criterion #12 by being aired annually on a cable TV channel, but it isn't distributed nationally as the criterion requires. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 16:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megumi Kubota[edit]

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

Only one main role as Ban Yamano, the protagonist, in the ~~Iinazuma Eleven~~Danboru Senki (Little Battlers Experience) series. Is that enough to meet WP:ENT? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC) updated 23:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - AngusWOOF By the way: either you or the article is wrong: Ban Yamato is not from Inazuma Eleven, he is apparently from Little Battlers Experience (the Inazuma Eleven appearance was apparently from some crossover special). I don't think that series is very popular, and I don't really see much coverage for Kubota, even in Japanese. She doesn't have any other major roles of note either. However, given that Little Battlers Experience is relatively recent, I don't see how Kubota isn't a possible search term, and as a such, a redirect shouldn't hurt. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 You're right. The Inazuma Eleven is a cross-over film with the LBX franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm doubtful that this is a likely search term for anyone who wasn't already viewing the Little Battlers Experience article, and a check of the page view statistics confirms that there were minimal views prior to the launch of this AfD.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 16:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puffy AmiYumi tours[edit]

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

I feel this falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE (statistics). Touring info can already be found under the main page Puffy AmiYumi, we really don't need a collection of dates/places. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't exactly remember creating this split-off article over ten years ago. But there are hundreds/thousands of examples of its kind, as a look through Category:Lists of concert tours and Category:Concert tours by artist will attest, all of which could be considered a collection of dates and places. Yes, the formatting of this one is definitely substandard. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasted Time R: I would suggest making a section under Puffy AmiYumi, and going from there. You do have a point about other articles succeeding in separate "List of x tours articles" but for this case it might be WP:TOOSOON. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. None of the tours are independently notable & the article lists no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman and merge some content, if necessary, into Puffy AmiYumi. RoCo^(talk) 17:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Puffy AmiYumi#Tours, eliminating the details about venues. The detail given here seems unencyclopedic to me; it would be sufficient to have a handful of bullets in the main article, one of each tour. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about merging WP:OR back into the article though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm talking about merging the major headings back in, basically. That isn't OR, the existence of the tours should be easily verifiable. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any citable info can be merged. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 16:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rain in the Mountains[edit]

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

Indy film (a comedy, not a documentary) unsourced with no indication of notability. Article was prodded, prod removed with explanation that IMDB states that film won 2 awards. No independent verification for the notability of this claim/prize provided. One of the awards was from the very minor Buffalo Niagara Film Festival. The other, a very minor festival held as a fringe of Sundance, gave an award in the category Moondance International Film Festival#Sandcastle Award, a category for having both men and women in the filmaking team. Mostly, however, the article lacks secondary sourcing E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 3 April 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 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm very inclusionist, but I really can't find ANY reliable sources discussing this film in a substantial manner..--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, may not have many listed sources now, but is notable for being an award-winning Native American film, for its good comments at IMDb, and for including as an actor American Indian activist Robert Satiacum Jr., who is notable in other areas. There should be exceptions made to deletions, and this film seems to have a place in Native American filmmaking heritage. The awards won may be minor, but are notable, again, for being won by a Native American film. Randy Kryn 17:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:Randy Kryn. perhaps you are new to AfD. You might want to read WP:N. Notability is not a matter of opinion, it requires WP:RS, secondary sources that are not local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not new to the sad world of AfD, where tall trees fall when no one is watching. This film has two awards. Maybe not major awards in the Golden Globe sense, but valuable to both the awardees and those giving the awards. So at a minimum the page should be kept with a sources-needed tag. WP:N is a guideline, which would have common sense exceptions, and this should be one of those. Awards, a notable actor, and its ties to Native American culture in both topic and creation (not common in film) should pass the exception bar. Randy Kryn 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that films with major awards might not be deleted is because awards indicate that there is significant reliable coverage of the film, not that the awards in and of themselves make a film notable. notability is not inherited from an actor, either. This film is important, I agree, because of it comes out of Native American culture, but that has to be proven in reliable sources.

There is this Tacoma Weekly source that discusses the film. If more like this can be found, then the article should be kept.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if High Def Digest is reliable. If so, this source should be considered. That might be enough to warrant a weak keep.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched unsuccessfully for sources, too. High Def Digest (not bluelinked) appears to be an online venue for high definition TV and video, but not a notable one that I can see, it may simply run promotional copy for the shows. It's not notable enough that anyone writes about it. As for other sorts of sources, I did find this [13] article in the Tacoma Weekly, but this kind of ultra local coverage of a local film in which a local boy (Santiacum) even supplies the local spaper with a photo of himself in costume for the film does not establish notability. It pretty much just shows what we already know, that the film was exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the lone article I found - in that ultra local weekly - was also found by User:3family6. Neither of us has been able to find another. Some small films just aren't notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It did win some awards. And it is notable from a Native American cultural standpoint. Knox490 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)(replace comment that somehow got deleted).E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor changes his iVote below, withotu ~~striking~~ this ~~keep~~.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a film examines a particular "cultural perspective" does not confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of awards muse be validated by coverage of the fact an award was given to this film in a reliable secondary sources;and note that these awards are extraordinarily minor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not have depth of coverage. It did win some awards. And it is notable from a Native American cultural standpoint. But these two things do not enable the article to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Knox490 (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring it just not notable because it appeals to only one culture is a poor argument, and even if notable just to that culture, we do have notability enough for Wikipedia.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another point for guideline exception, this film is literally the only film listed by itself (not in a sub-category) in Category:Native American cinema. There are really not very many Native American film articles on Wikipedia. And the two awards this film won may be minor in notability, I don't know but they seem to have disappeared from the page, but they were awards for a Native American film. That doesn't happen near often enough, and because of that this culturally semi-important Native American film may merit a "Keep" under the exception rule, despite any seemingly applicable guidelines. Randy Kryn 02:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Also, please try to be accurate. That category includes 2 Hopi-language films‎, 3 Lakota-language films‎, 4 Mohawk-language films‎, and 14 Navajo-language films‎.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Category:Films about Native Americans.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt searches: We dig deeper and more exactingly...

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

Good for you, I hope you find significant coverage in WP:RS in one of these searches. If you do, please link it here or on the page, but only if it is significant as defined in WP:GNG and reliable as defined in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I can see that User:MichaelQSchmidt put a lot of work into creating these search bars, the ones I spot-checked yield nothing better than a mention of a promotional blog written by the director during production. We still lack sources to support notability. Ping me if anyone finds sources, I am always glad to be able to change an iVote or withdraw an AfD when sources are found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I scoured the web for producer/director Joel Metlen before starting this AfD, and all I found was that after a non-notable record of working in the industry at IMDB, he appears to have left the industry years ago. directors can confer notability on films, or, at least, they are often useful search terms in establishing notability. Not here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article. This film does not appear to me to have any innate notability in and of itself. I searched for the title, for the principal people involved and cannot find sufficient in-depth coverage of this film or of its principal people. There is only one person who was in the film that is notable for WP's purposes but that doesn't seem enough to me to convey notability to this production (and this person is notable in politics not in film). Is there another WP article that this content could possibly be merged into? Shearonink (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find the type of in-depth coverage you would need to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Distraction osteogenesis. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limb lengthening methods[edit]

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

This page is mostly unsourced WP:OR, and contains a great deal of badly sourced promotion. What was not badly sourced, was merged to Distraction osteogenesis way back in February 2016. First an IP and then a named user has continued to restore this awful thing, which should not exist as it duplicates existing content, and what doesn't, violates WP policy. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read a news article on this procedure from ABC News: Leg Lengthening Patient Hopes to Grow By 3.3 Inches With Painful Procedure. I don't think an encyclopedia should promote a risky and painful medical procedure that is commonly done for cosmetic reasons. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That the procedure is dangerous is not a valid reason for deletion. In fact, that is a reason for having an article so the dangers can be documented. I have no opinion on whether or not a separate page should be maintained, but the history must be preserved per Siuenti and WP:OVERLAP SpinningSpark 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect plausible search term, has been merged, relevant content at target, protect no need for a separate article Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Distraction osteogenesis. Plausible search term but nothing salvageable that is not already at the redirect target page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as has been attempted multiple times. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Criticism of Walmart. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 16:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midtown Walmart[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Individual Wal-Mart. Prevan (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's more of an article on a development controversy in a gentrifying neighborhood than a store. It has a multitude of reliable sources across many publications. B137 (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Miami. This does have sourcing but it does not seem to be notable enough in itself for it's own article. It's a single event in one area, therefore suggest merging it to that city's page if the content is to be kept. -- Dane ^talk 01:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The city is way too big for a merge. Prevan (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be merged with Midtown Miami or Wynwood, the "prominent" neighborhoods it is a part of. B137 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a liberal keeptionist, what's it hurting? B137 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userify, it seems to be WP:TOOSOON for this article, considering the construction project is on hold. Currently we have a Wikipedia article about a planning application. The comparisons with other Walmarts aeems to be WP:OR, because the news articles about the Miami Walmart don't make these comparisons. Sionk (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Criticism of Walmart. I'm going to cite WP:IMPACT as the reason for keeping this one. Sure it's just a Walmart, but most Walmarts are built with little or no resistance or controversy. This one has a broader impact on the community itself. I agree that some of the article uses original research, but it's otherwise well-written and worth keeping in my opinion. Or at least merging with Criticism of Walmart. Gargleafg (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of Walmart feels like a good plan to me.Clawsyclaw (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator has mistaken (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Géza Gyóni[edit]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BrainMobi[edit]

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

The claim of inclusion in a "top X startup"-type listing notwithstanding (and see footnote 3 at WP:CORP), I find no evidence of substantial coverage suitable for meeting WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Not notable. Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available independent sources.- Mr X 17:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impacts of animal husbandry in the United States[edit]

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

Starting trying to clean this up but it is a hopeless WP:COATRACK that was (and still is) full of WP:SYN, POV claims, badly sourced/unsouroced content.. Better (more neutrally, better sourced) covered at the subtopics like Concentrated animal feeding operation and Intensive animal farming etc. The lower part of the article is full of dire WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff about what the Trump administration might do.

Would have to be almost completely rewritten to make this is a WP article. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be another student article, in a course, which I saw mentioned at ANI (although I don't think there is any real problem with it being a student article). ANI discussion not yet archived, is at wp:ANI#POV forks being created as school project. These articles should not be given any different consideration, it was suggested, but I think it helps to understand where they're coming from. See also:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America‎
- Draft:Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming

Calling for a complete rewrite can be done by a tag, {{Rewrite}}. But that means you think there is a valid article topic, right? --do ncr am 05:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i am not at all sure that there is a valid topic here that is not already covered by many other articles - i listed only a few of the overlaps above; there a a bunch more. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Between Concentrated animal feeding operation, Intensive animal farming, Environmental impact of meat production, and manure lagoon, it is an entire overlap of existing articles. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Concentrated animal feeding operation. The article has now been moved to Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations, but Concentrated animal feeding operation already has "environmental impact" and "economic impact" sections. I'm not convinced of the need of a spin-off article at this stage. St Anselm (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article that is entirely covered by existing articles that we have, many of which being significantly higher quality. I don't agree with a redirect, because I don't see the title as a plausible target. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst merge/redirect to Concentrated animal feeding operation or Environmental impact of agriculture or Environmental impact of meat production. Could certainly use a little streamlining, but the central statements are important and do not appear to be covered elsewhere. -- Kku (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 16:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Wordsmith summarized it well. Other articles already cover this topic to the point a merge would not provide new information, and a redirect wouldn't be useful because a redirect to a single article isn't justified over the others covering this topic, nor is it likely something that will be directly searched. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTESSAY — JFG ^talk 21:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 16:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital de San Carlos[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no evidence of significant coverage LibStar (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD fails wp:BEFORE. Numerous hits in La Prensa Libre Costa Rica, in Diario de Cádiz, in other newspapers. Also, in general hospitals are going to be notable. To the nominator, please try to refrain from commenting on my opinion, merely to say you disagree with my opinion. --do ncr am 00:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the coverage is routine of what you'd expect in a hospital. There is no inherent notability in hospitals. Again WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Hospitals are major institutions in communities. I will try to add some content to the article this week. Knox490 (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added material to the article. Knox490 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability of hospitals. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ~~Neutral, but WP:AGF so Weak Keep~~Delete - however, keeping the general (WP:GNG) and specific (WP:NHOSPITALS) guidelines in mind, the article should not exist solely because the hospital exists - if there is press coverage (beyond routine "the victims were transported to ...") then it should be kept, otherwise it's not necessary to waste the time of Wikipedia editors on improving an article that can't be improved. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC) opinion changed based on new info, 11:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this source, a whole chapter, and an entire book about this hospital. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources appear to be about a now closed hospital with the same name that is notable. It shouldn't be too hard to replace the end of the article's only sentence. SL93 (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from somebody who understands Spanish (to some extant) - the above source, on page 514, talking about a psychiatrist who worked there, says that it is "[el] viejo Hospital de San Carlos", that is, the OLD Hospital of San Carlos, which confirms what SL93 says. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Looking at the table of contents, I conclude the same thing (sorry for the repeated edits). 02:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Thanks for the help. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, assuming that they are related, like the "new" hospital is the successor of the "old" one, this article should be about both. It is routine to cover the organization and the older and current buildings of the organization, for organizations like churches and schools and hospitals, in one article at the common name (or the most recent name). --do ncr am 03:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. For all we know it could be a small medical practice. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems clear that the old hospital has had significant coverage and the new hospital is a continuation of the old. I don't see why we shouldn't have an article about the old one (clearly it passes GNG), and it seems verifiable that the new is a continuation of the old. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as explained below the coverage found refers to a different hospital. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you are right that the coverage refers to a different hospital, but not the one discussed below. There is a hospital in Quesada, Alajueda, Costa Rica with this name. There is also a hospital in Ñiquén, Chile, es:Hospital de San Carlos (Chile), with the history added by Knox490. A few more hospitals with similar names can be found at es:Hospital de San Carlos. I don't see why both of these hospitals wouldn't be notable - google news search of the hospital name and (either) city give lots of routine coverage and likely could give something deeper. I'd be happy to restore my !vote if this were cleaned up, but I am striking for now. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Per Smmmurphy. L3X1 (distant write) 21:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not a genuine argument as per WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned page says, if the endorsed comment has a solid grounding in policy, then yes it's okay to simply endorse it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What WBGodric has to say about PERNOM. L3X1 (distant write) 04:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: since Smmurphy has changed his/her vote, you would no longer support keep too. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

!vote struck. L3X1 (distant write) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 16:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete what the hell is wrong with people? This page is about a hospital in Costa Rica. this source and this source and this source cited above (the last two of which are volume 1 and volume 2 by the same author, not a chapter and a book) are about a hospital with this name in Spain. The title of the first ref is "Constructing Spain: The Re-imagination of Space and Place in Fiction and Film, 1953-2003", for pete's sake so you cannot even claim the Spanish language problem. It is really despicable for people to just grab some ref that mentions the word X and claim a Wikipedia page about some specific X is notable. This page is another uncited Dr Blofeld special and fails GNG by miles. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - never bothered to look for that, I just assumed good faith. Though, here, the mentioned source does mention (with dates corresponding to the Spanish Civil War) a civil war, so that's it - changed my vote to delete, thus. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, bit confusing, but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of the subject of this article to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sunday Times Rich List 2008. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times 2008 Young Rich List[edit]

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

Non-notable. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to merge with Sunday Times Rich List 2008? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 16:20, 20 April 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 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sunday Times Rich List 2008. No independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sunday Times Rich List 2008. Not enough notability for a standalone article, but no reason the info can't be included in the other. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Afshaniyaat-e-Iqbal[edit]

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

Article created by blocked sock (but before the master was blocked, and thus not eligible for CSD) about a book with translations of poetry, published by Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (an article currently at AfD), and part of his multi-article multi-year campaign of self-promotion on en-WP. The only reference in the article is a link proving that the book exists, but merely existing isn't enough to make it notable, especially not when it's just translations of poetry written by others. The article is also far more about Chitrali himself than about the work he translated. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable book. couldn't found references in the reliable sources. blatant advertisement. --Saqib (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Patrick Herron[edit]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Based on his personal biography [14], he's not notable as a poet. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TDLang (programming language)[edit]

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

Non-notable programming language. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the author's COI it's borderline A11, & G11. Cabayi (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Purvis[edit]

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

Besides a borderline-notable role in Poltergeist: The Legacy, subject did not have significant roles in any major films or TV shows. The Leo Award alone does not prove notability since we do not have articles on every individual who won that. She had little coverage in entertainment sources during her acting years and stopped over 14 years ago, so unlikely to be gain notability in the future The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:37, 20 April 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 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the multiple significant roles in major films test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaqat Hussain Awan[edit]

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

Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Not press coverage in reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:Notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill[edit]

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

I would favour a merge of both articles to the islands page Forvik, there is more information than needed with the two pages that are for deletion --Pennine rambler (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale is below. Despite the sources, I'm not sold on the idea of the subject's notability - but will refrain from making a recommendation on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP created this as a 2nd nomination, but I cannot find a record of a previous AFD, though that previous AFD may have been under another title. Feel free to add the link if it turns up. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The self-crafted page of a eccentric with no historical important or national or international standing. Obviously for deletion. 109.151.239.156 (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. He may be a crank, but he gets ongoing non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources like Vice magazine and The New York Times. The latest burst of coverage comes thanks to the Brexit. • Gene93k (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His activities attracted coverage in the press that went beyond local sources, over a period of years, so appears to pass WP:BASIC. I have added a few more sources although the article still needs some attention. I favour merging the content in Sovereign State of Forvik to the article on Hill. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manorama Bai[edit]

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

No sources. In fact googling for "Manorama Bai Singh" finds only this article and mirrors. Batternut (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find a source anywhere. Notability isn't inherited. Stickee (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable person with no reliable sources to find. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Doesn't clearly pass V, but with a source on parentage, there is not enough NOR detail to show subject is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frost Belt[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEO. Sources in article are passing mentions. Online results are mirrors. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a term that has been widely used, should be defined in Wikipedia. In contrast to Sun Belt, i guess. Looks like the article has a New York Times source already. I am not going to bother to assemble sources, myself, but for AFD purposes the notability is clear enough already. --do ncr am 10:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG. Source examples: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. More are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources above establish notability --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple google search brings up many results, including (but not limited to) the ones NA supplied. I see a very small amount of Wikipedia mirrors, though maybe we searched using different terms. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KAITHORA[edit]

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

Bishal revenger (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. No reason for deletion given in the nomination, and villages are typically presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND. VQuakr (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the AFD nomination was due to a lack of sources. Is there any evidence that this location exists? --NoGhost (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NoGhost: "lack of sources" is not a valid reason for deletion. To answer your question - yes; I have a query on the article talk page that pinged the article creator. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This place appears to be Kaithora, Jaunpur district, Uttar Pradesh, India from Google hits and the historic mention. The Census of India database is not responding at the moment, and so I can't confirm legal recognition. • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Correct name is Kithora where an article exists already. Ajf773 (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: Not the same place. — Stringy Acid (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Just looking at Google Maps there is not only a Kaithora and a Kithora in Uttar Pradesh, but also a Kithara and a Kaithola (which is obviously confusing). In that case my vote becomes Keep as a valid stub article. Ajf773 (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GEOLAND, since this is a village with an officially recognized name, whose existence can be verified ([26] [27]) — Stringy Acid (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are multiple places with the name Kaithora. From the article's content, this seems to be about the one in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh ([28], [29]), and not the one in Madhya Pradesh as specified in the sources I linked above. — Stringy Acid (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shumkar[edit]

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

There is no mention of a place called Shumkar in the 2009 population census (if it existed, it would have been on page 217, Alay district, Uch-Debensky a.o.), and there is no populated place with this or a similar name near the given location on this detailed map. Markussep ^Talk 08:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Again, searching fails to produce evidence of such a place, and the location given (the only real datum) is at best wrong. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alike, Kyrgyzstan[edit]

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

There is no mention of a place called Alike in the 2009 population census (if it existed, it would have been on page 219, Nookat district, Isanovsky a.o.), and there is no populated place with this or a similar name near the given location on this detailed map. Markussep ^Talk 08:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I had a similar lack of results. Mangoe (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNSCHOOLS LIVE[edit]

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

Bishal revenger (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishal revenger:, you need to provide a rationale for this nomination? AllyD (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD: The article seems more like a promotion rather than providing information and its usefulness at wikipedia Bishal revenger (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11/promotional. Seems to be blatant promotion. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 as it appears to be blatant promotion. Also, it is copy-pasted from the address at the notice on the top of the page, so G12 copyright issues are likely to exist --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pricekart[edit]

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

Except for one hit on the website NDTV, which also features two other similar products, I couldn't find enough significant coverage for this company. Most of what I could find were press releases, promotional material, and website profiles. Given that the company was just founded this year, maybe this is at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a new comparison website. Searches, including the tailored Wikiproject India search, are finding nothing to indicate attained notability. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Countries affected by Terrorism[edit]

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

Original research. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as purely original research --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment contrary to the previous comments, this article is not entirely based on original research. The statistics are clearly derived from the sole non-Wikipedia reference, this PDF of the 2016 Global Terrorism Index by the Institute for Economics and Peace. Other sources such as Forbes and The Independent have covered this. The editor who created this article is a student working on a related course, and could probably do with some pointers in the right direction. My advice would be to work on Number of terrorist incidents by country or the aforementioned Global Terrorism Index. Fuebaey (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but use 2016 article data to update related article based on 2015 data We already have Number of terrorist incidents by country which is sortable but is is based on 2015 data. Use:Global Terrorism Index 2016 to update this article (I listed this PDF in the newly created 2016 section for the article Number of terrorist incidents by country article. I do not have the time to transfer that data by country to the article). Not original research as demonstrated by User: Fuebaey. The "top 10" portion of the current title is unencyclopic. Top 10 lists for articles are usually used by websites to spark people's interest and get them to read the list.Knox490 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Number of terrorist incidents by country which is sortable.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic original research. Ajf773 (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copy vio RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. gautam chatterjee[edit]

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

fails NACADEMIC and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything too substantial about this person. Also, this could possible be deleted as a copyvio of this (87.9%), so I'm going to add the G12 tag. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources are deemed unreliable/promotional; that LinkedIn suggests something is OR and not an argument--and yes, promotional material can be removed, but without sourcing there is no topic, no GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Machinio[edit]

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

Non notable company. Killer Moff (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of citations from major news business sources. Google and Google news shows quite a bit of search results. In addition, their LinkedIn profile says they are hiring so they are a growing company. They are expanding globally and hiring in several countries. Inc. Magazine says they are disrupting some markets.[30] Knox490 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo material on an unremarkable business. Copy include such trivia as "After graduating from the Entrepreneurs Roundtable Accelerator,[5] Machinio raised $1,000,000 in seed capital from Angel investors like Rony Kahan...." This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- promotional content can be removed. Awsber (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC) — Awsber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -- I see that AfC draft has been declined, but moved into the main space anyway: User_talk:Awsber. This is quite possibly an undisclosed WP:COI situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 05:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete *None* of the references meet the criteria to establish notability. The usual run-of-the-maill advertorials. Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Tremblay (Varennes politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable only as the mayor of a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. There's quite literally no substance here besides "he existed" and no sourcing but for a primary source profile from the city's own website. The only reason I'm not just speedying this immediately is that it's somehow flown under the radar in this state for a full decade. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searching found nothing helpful, just articles about other people with the same name. Gab4gab (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unsourced article for mayor of city with 20,000 people. MB298 (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 16:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuozzo (company)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kudo417 with the following rationale on talk: "This article is notable because they are the company behind OpenVZ, a widely used paravirtualization system. Notability for OpenVZ can be easily verified", to which I replied that WP:NOTINHERITED. Given no further discussion has taken place for weeks, I see no recourse but to progress this discussion here. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The referenced text is predominantly routine coverage about ownership changes (much concerning the period as SWsoft, making it also debatable whether two articles are worthwhile if this article survives?). My own searches are not locating WP:RS coverage of the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenVZ. This company is well-known in the industry as the company which originally developed OpenVZ. Since it is only really notable for that, it possibly isn't notable enough for an article in its own right, but I think a redirect would be justifiable. SJK (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above, about half of current refs border on primary / fail WP:GNG. Just pulled a lengthy WP:Out of scope from SWsoft and tagged for advertising. I was initially leaning delete but a quick search of G-News sans "(company)" displays several recent refs here and here as well as Silicon, CW and Geekwire. Also caught links in Russian and Chinese amongst routine spammy pr. Needs to differentiate between product v. company as this causes convoluted confusion & cut down advertisement throughout.Jppcap (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went through the references you listed. With one exception (Computer Weekly), the rest are WP:PRIMARY sources as they rely on company-generated information/data with no additional analysis. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. To evaluate sources provided by Jppcap.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 05:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable private company, with copy such as "... a pioneer in the operating system-level virtualization field ...". Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pinged back and did a broader search rn and this looks like a case of WP:NEXIST. Alas, a number of primary refs / some overt advert cut out. Above refs added to a temp "External links" header to work through & Russian/Chinese added. Needs more eyes on the current text, as plenty of advert still to revise.Jppcap (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Find sources:books; scholar; HighBeam negates Not Inherited. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why above links are included.. Click-through and found:

Keep There are adequate sources that meet guidelines and establish notability. For example, the book references by Burroughs'10 and the Computer Weekly article mentioned by Jppcap -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Finn (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as the former mayor of a city not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. This is based almost entirely on primary sources, with the exception of a single piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of his resignation from the mayoralty, so none of this gets him over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of the NPOL equation for local politicians -- and while this makes an alternate notability claim, it fails to contain the sourcing to support it. This is not what it takes to make the mayor of a city of just 21K notable for that in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mayor of city with 20,000 people. MB298 (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- none or few secondary WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comedy Series[edit]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Wylie pedia 14:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Google News search doesn't have anything big in it, so I'd say this fails GNG. Sorry to the article's creator. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 05:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refined search terms on Google News here show 4,210 results. The award category has existed for more than 20 years from the most prominent LGBT media organization. (Rburton66 (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
How long does this discussion remain open before I can remove the AfD message? Rburton66 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article's content could be merged with the GLAAD Media Award article if it would fit, which it won't. The GLAAD Media Awards receive significant coverage yearly including mentions of this particular award. This [31] search provides a large number of results with enough combined coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 04:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an update regarding this discussion? Similar pages GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series and GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Individual Episode were approved. Rburton66 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Brunet[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as the former mayor of a city that isn't large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. This does not show the depth or breadth of coverage needed to get him over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of NPOL #2, however -- of the eight references here, three are primary sources, one is routine election coverage, and none of the other four are about him, but merely namecheck his existence in the process of being about a piece of municipal infrastructure. This is not the depth of coverage it takes to make the mayor of a small suburban city notable for that. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mayor of city with 20,000 people. MB298 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Houston, Texas Proposition 1, 2015. No prejudice towards simply redirecting. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Houston[edit]

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

Organization not notable -- (probably) one of many supporting or opposing Proposition 1 in Houston, which was defeated. – S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Houston, Texas Proposition 1, 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: – I quite agree with you. As this AfD has not attracted much comment, I will undertake a WP:BLAR in a few days. – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon consideration, Merging to Houston, Texas Proposition 1, 2015 is a functional outcome. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 17:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Happy Trans[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in mainstream independent third-party sources. Article has been a low-content stub since its creation in 2014, and I really don't see it ever being anything more. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of significant coverage in mainstream independent third-party sources.

Did you actually search for any? The website is mentioned in several books, including The Massachusetts General Hospital Textbook on Diversity and Cultural Sensitivity in Mental Health[32] — goethean 18:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. That doesn't count, as it is absolutely trivial coverage. The one result from a text search comes up with "We Happy Trans, a site that shares positive perspectives on being trans-gendered." That's the extent of it. Our notability guidelines require substantial coverage of the web content, not passing mentions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't count

Of course it doesn't. I love these conversations. — goethean 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites). I looked at Scholar and Books and there are a few mentions, but in passing, and that's not enough. We are not a web directory/catalog. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noted in major sources including The New York Times,[33][34] The New Yorker,[35] and The Guardian,[36] among others. Funcrunch (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails due to lack of significant, reliable, independent secondary coverage, doesn't meet the simplest of WP standards for notability.Cllgbksr (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the only reason this doesn't come up in scholar and te like is that its fairly recent. Nonetheless when you look at news sources its obvious this organization is notable with mentions by established journalists. Toveswuu hed (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial mentions, which are the only basis for at least two of the keep !votes, do not go to notability. A recentism argument also does not go to notability, but would be a valid point for WP:TOOSOON, which should result in the article either being deleted or moved to draftspace. However, the article has been in existence for over 3 years, so an argument of recentism is a bit disingenuous. Searches turned up trivial mentions, listings and press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:A7, G11 by User:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ULTIMATE DRIFT : THE LEGEND[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILM with zero coverage. Blackguard 04:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan[edit]

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

Content not notable. ~~Metropolitan areas are not recognized by the government of Taiwan since 2010~~. There are no reliable sources on the topic. Szqecs (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if the government of Taiwan no longer uses the concept of "metropolitan area", there still presumably are geographical areas in Taiwan which would be thought of as metropolitan areas by geographers in other countries. If this article is to be deleted, it should be replaced with a redirect to an article which covers metropolitan areas in Taiwan as people would still want that information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards speedy keep here as the nomination is clearly erroneous. The nominator acknowledges that metropolitan areas were recognized by the government of Taiwan until 2010, and yet inexplicably and unsupportably claims that there are no reliable sources on the topic. The premise for the nomination then seems to be that we only list presently existing things, or that once it is no longer an official thing it can no longer be verified that it ever existed. In any event, the nomination is contradictory and incorrect, and unless another argument for deletion is presented there's nothing to discuss. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I prove that there are no reliable sources? There are buttons up there for you to easily find sources and disprove this claim. The premise of this nomination is WP:N, not existence. Szqecs (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if the government of Taiwan recognized metropolitan areas before 2010, there must be sources saying so from 2009 or earlier. And whether or not the government recognizes metropolitan areas, such areas still exist, because Taiwan still has large cities and those large cities have smaller cities and towns surrounding them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 2010 sentence because both of you were mislead. It's not that since 2010 the subject doesn't exist, or that they are no sources because it is not recognized. This was never a notable topic, but since they are no longer recognized, it is unlikely to ever become notable. Szqecs (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your comment because it's already been replied to, removing it makes it look like you never said it unless someone digs into the history of this page and completely distorts the context for replies by others. If you want to retract something, you can do that by either 1) a subsequent comment in this discussion that explains why you were incorrect or no longer support a previous statement you made, or 2) by using ~~strikethrough~~ (<s>...</s>) with an explanation. postdlf (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, back on the merits... You claimed that there are no reliable sources, which is obviously false, and not the same thing as claiming that something isn't notable (a claim you have not explained). Regardless, we don't even need to delve into notability because one of Wikipedia's core functions is as a gazetteer, which means we document populated places. We have independent articles on metropolitan areas in Taiwan and this list indexes them together based on that (prior) classification as a "metropolitan area". And as Metropolitan90 has pointed out, metropolitan area has a general meaning outside of any official classifications, so this list would be justified under either sense. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do not have a valid reason for deletion, as even a defunct metro region would still meet WP:GEOLAND and a list of such regions would meet WP:CLN, as we need to provide reasonable ways for people to find things, including lists. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears to pass WP:LISTN, and is focused so that it is not simply a random list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cree Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG as shown by this and this. Nothing has improved since the last AfD, which should of at least been closed as 'no consensus'. Redirect to List of Wikipedias. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But then why have you not tried first to simply place a merge tag on the article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only the nominator, User:Graham11, argued for deletion at the earlier AfD. Currently, it seems that not even the nominator is arguing for deletion; J947 seems to recommend a redirect. FWIW, Graham11 argued, "I can't find any independent references to the website's existence." There are currently two independent sources cited (obviously the 5 Wikimedia references don't count), and there is at least mention of the project in a third reliable source, as I mentioned at AfD last year. I'm not seeing any reason to overturn the earlier keep decision. Cnilep (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG. Dean Esmay (talk)
~~Keep~~ -- there's enough critical commentary to justify keeping this article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias where it is already covered. It's a puzzle to me why the previous nomination was closed as keep. Looking at the current sources I see only brief mentions in the independent coverage. If I've missed something significant please let me know where it is. There is some useful discussion here regarding redirecting other Wikipedia without independent sources to the list. While this one has some independent coverage it doesn't include significant, detailed coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias. (I'm also a bit puzzled by the last closure, since it was done so by a non-admin user, with no indication that it was a non-admin close. That's against policy, surely.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias on second thoughts; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer-Marc Frey[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Unable to determine notability. scope_creep (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete. Argument for keep is this report from Wall Street Journal on the firm he founded: "Man Group PLC, already one of the world's biggest hedge fund managers, said it agreed to buy Swiss rival RMF Investment Group for $833 million (€899.3 million) in a deal that will nearly double its size."[37] So that is impressive. Due to language barrier and not being acquainted with foreign publications/websites, I could not confirm his notability though. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similar to Knox490, language problem; but I think he is notable enough. The article needs a little workuo, but it should not be deleted. —usernamekiran[talk] 09:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RMF fund is significant, and he's been active in M&A since. e.g. in the last month he received quite a bit of coverage (including English, but local swiis as well) for the Leonteq stake he acquired.Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The RMF fund isn't him, and notability is not inherited. scope_creep (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- seems to be a significant player, here's sample coverage that provides some bio details: "Hedge fund pioneer", "Hedge-Fund-Wunderkind", etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References in the article indicate notability, and the ones that K.e.coffman supplied above helps prove notability. It needs a bit of work on the prose-side, but AfD ain't cleanup so that can be done some other time.Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marcotte[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as the mayor of a city not large enough to confer notability on its mayors per WP:NPOL, and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. The biggest "more notable than the norm" hook here is that he resigned after facing corruption charges -- but he died before actually making it to trial for them, and since he was never convicted of anything in a court of law, we shouldn't be keeping an article about him on WP:PERP grounds. And with just five sources here, of which only two are non-local and zero are in the context of anything other than the PERP issue, there isn't really the depth or breadth of sourcing to claim that WP:GNG requires an article to exist regardless of the biographical sensitivities here -- he simply wasn't prominent enough for one of the highest-traffic websites in the entire world to keep an article on the basis of criminal allegations that will never actually be adjudicated one way or the other in a court of law. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mayor of city with 40,000 people. MB298 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prymal[edit]

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

A page on unremarkable comic character with "in universe" content & no independent sources. Associated entities are likewise non notable: Maelstrom Comics; Marcelo Bravo; Eric Alan Nelson. The only (two) citations provided are to a Kickstarter page.

I was not able to locate sources to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nominator's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Reed-Rowe[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, even from the United States. she gets hardly any coverage. her post to a tiny nation in terms of world diplomacy. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:ANYBIO # 3 met in addition to WP:GNG per cursory US-based Google search. Article could use improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain how she satisfies ANYBIO #3. Secondly please show the actual outcome of your google search. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. Of course diplomats are not inherently notable, but multiple independent sources cover Reed-Rowe in detail.--TM 11:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which sources are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Army War College Community Banner, White House Press Releases/Lanham, and state department web page all seem like reliable sources that can be used to write an article that passes V, NPOV, and NOR, as this one currently does. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the white house and state department are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They may be, but I'm unclear what you mean. Do you think their use in this case results in a violation of NOR per WP:PRIMARY? Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the sources are her employer so not independent of the subject. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep note added source https://diplopundit.net/2010/05/22/officially-in-helen-reed-rowe-to-koror/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffFive (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards future demonstrations of notability. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KarmaCircles[edit]

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

Relatively new website with no indication of notability. Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet GNG at this time. It might at some point in the future, there are some reliable external sources. Just not enough yet to establish notability. South Nashua (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have some more resources to add up to meet GNG which I am gong to add now. Bulle Shah (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Simply appending bare URL links to the bottom of the page doesn't go very far toward establishing notability. More comments needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources and detailed in press releases. Meatsgains (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as WP:TOOSOON. It looks like it might be notable pretty soon, but not yet. Decent coverage in BWDisrupt, but everything else I could access (a links didn't work) looked like press release, interview, primary source, or trivial mention. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment will be developing as I have more resources at hand now. Please consider a bit of time frame. It would be inappropriate to say links are a "passing mention" because a national daily like Times of India has written a whole dedicated article on it. Plus most resources talk about the company except one that talks about the founder.Bulle Shah (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 17:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Glam Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The website for the magazine has 4.5 million views per month. That is non-trivial. http://www.prcouture.com/2016/09/press-pitch-fashion-entertainment-beauty-editor-viva-glam-mag/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomburbine (talk • contribs)

Comment - Unfortunately, popularity does not equal notability. reddogsix (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of notable models such as Ashley Diana Morris, Alina Puscau, Leah Remini, and Joanna Krupa have appeared on the cover of VIVA GLAM Magazine. http://s326.photobucket.com/user/Katarinavanderham/library/VIVA%20GLAM%20MAGAZINE?sort=4&page=1

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A google search of VIVA GLAM Magazine shows that it has been mentioned in a number of news stories.Tomburbine

Delete -- overly promotional page on an unremarkable publication. Copy contains such "inspirational" language such as:

"Katarina Van Derham’s intention for VIVA GLAM Magazine is to provide information and encouragement to help a global audience live an ethical and glamorous lifestyle without sacrificing quality or luxury...." Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- Articles from VIVA GLAM Magazine are covered in news stories. VIVA GLAM Magazine events are also covered in news stories. That is the definition of notability.

tomburbine (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some of the coverage:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/12/10/exclusive-model-manager-nadja-atwal-beats-out-ivanka-trump-heidi-klum-for-viva.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-sexiest-power-woman-of-all-time-nadja-atwal-poses-for-peta-190199491.html
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kristen-stewart-cheating-on-robert-pattinson-wont-ruin-twilight-tour-says-costar-201218
http://www.ibtimes.com/bachelorette-star-josh-murray-dating-blonde-model-anna-von-staehle-report-2083249
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/sarah-stage-fit-pregnant-model/2015/04/16/id/638908/
http://en.yibada.com/articles/54359/20150815/chloe-lukasiak-maddie-ziegler.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/03/19/high-fashion-resisting-curvy-kate-upton-trend.html
http://www.starpulse.com/hot-babe-of-the-day-katarina-van-derham-1848418805.html
http://www.inquisitr.com/2100973/stassi-schroeder-speaks-out-for-the-first-time-after-being-fired-from-vanderpump-rules/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2182334/New-Real-Housewives-Miami-star-Joanna-Krupa-looks-heavenly-white-minidress.html
https://www.welt.de/reise/gallery122384064/Einkaufstipps-einer-erfolgreichen-Deutschen.html
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/caitlyn-jenner-heather-mcdonald-interview/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2555059/Gretchen-Rossi-poses-partner-Slade-Smiley-Valentine-themed-photoshoot.html

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ striking duplicate !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC) VIVA GLAM Magazine needs to be considered as a magazine and website and is notable because the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Also events hosted by VIVA GLAM Magazine have received considerable outside press.Tomburbine (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the text to make the page sound less promotional. I have added more references to show notability.Tomburbine (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GibFootballTalk[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows that this corporation/website is notable. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication this organization passes WP:NCORP. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jellyman (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horror House (2012 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film sourced only from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. Search [38] for major news reviews turned up nothing. A412 (Talk • C) 01:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no sources. I'm not even sure if the film actually exists. SL93 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This movie certainly does exist. Not only can you find pieces of it on YouTube, but also there are multiple images of it if you search on Google. There is also a brief but decent review of it on Horrorbug's website (http://horrorbug.com/horror-house-2012/) as well as on dreadcentral.com (http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/47433/lloyd-kaufman-stars-in-upcoming-anthology-horror-house/). You can even watch the trailer on Amazon video - including reviews.(https://www.amazon.com/Horror-House-Lloyd-Kaufman/dp/B00FL48YZ8). But if you still doubt it, their own website is still up: www.horror-house.com where it lists a number of sources and medias that you can rent or buy it on including iTunes, Xbox Live and Google Play. Sweet Home Films LLC, producer of the film, also mentions the movie on their Facebook page. Encyes (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film can be watched, but there really isn't anything out there that would be considered a reliable source that would show notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. A film is not automatically notable because it exists (WP:ITEXISTS) and can be purchased. The Horrorbug website would be considered a self-published blog-type source on Wikipedia, as there is nothing on the site that shows its editorial process. Most review websites along these lines aren't considered to be reliable sources. It's not really anything against these sites - I actually have a few websites that I check fairly religiously that would be considered SPS on here (at least at this point in time) such as Culture Crypt - it's just that Wikipedia is fairly discerning when it comes to sourcing. The Dread Central source is OK, but wouldn't be enough on its own to establish notability for the film. A search brought up little that would show that this movie would pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A few WP:ITSNOTABLE comments do not address the fact, pointed out by others, that there is no reliable in-depth sourcing in this BLP. If anyone would like a go at rescuing it, let me know and I'll move the content back to Draft. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria set out on. Contained unreliable and questionable sourced which have been removed since they cannot be used as citations. Blatant promotion written by a by socks of indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer Akbaralighazi. Saqib (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be coverage in some news sources. Mar4d (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have we decide to keep the bio, lets curate it as per reliable sources available on web. I have created the Draft:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali. The bio can be further expanded using this source which mentions that he have recieved many awards but I'm sure not sure if those awards not noteworthy enough ? --Saqib (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold stop. Those are not reliable sources.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the news sources that Mar4d has cited above that both The Dardistan Times and The Express Tribune are being controlled by the sockmaster and his meatpuppets and are COI fluff pieces themselves. This and this are written by blocked meats (check the authorship) and the Dardistan Times may now be sent to RSN as unreliable. Likewise, this piece was authored by a blocked meat and the article subject who supplied the photo. <== The Express Tribune is therefore unreliable and the listing for The International News doesn't have any attribution and looks suspect as unreliable. And the BBC source and two others in your list do not mention him at all. That list is a brilliant argument to Delete.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the Express Tribune as unreliable source, though we can question the accuracy of reporting. The subject may have approached the journalists for press coverage. I didn't liked the fluff piece by Daily Pakistan which reads "He is a freelance contributor and pioneer of Khowar Wikipedia and writes in Khowar language articles for Wikimedia foundation." Seriously, is he pioneer of Wikipedia? Anyways Per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." --Saqib (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG and everything else. There's not a single reliable source, independent of the subject, providing in-depth coverage of the subject, let alone the multiple such reliable sources that would be required. I can add that before I cleaned/pruned it, it was the worst self-promotional puffery piece, bordering on hagiography, that I have ever seen here on en-WP... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your critique on the sources, though I do not agree with your assessment that The Express Tribune is unreliable. ET is one of the two largest English dailies in Pakistan (the other being Dawn) and is a very prominent mainstream source. The subject is covered in detail in the following article also: Khowar language: Keys of preservation. Furthermore, a basic search of the subject's name in Urdu yields some of the following results: Deutsche Welle [39], UrduPoint [40], ARY News [41], Geo Urdu [42] [43], Chitral [44], News Tribe [45] etc. Just putting these forward per WP:SYSTEMICBIAS to avoid over-reliance on English sources. I do agree however that the article should be cleansed from anything self-promotional or hagiographic in tone. Mar4d (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Express Tribune failed verification of sources on this article. Note the posted comment in 2014 where sources were requested..."Great work. Is there any source to verify the claims? No doubt it is a great piece of work but we live in a country where water-run car made to TV and print media. I failed to get an authentic verification of a reliable source. Someone?". I'm not judging them for all matters here on WP but for this they fail. Since the article cites The Dardistan Times then there is no reason to treat that as a RS. No comment on the others...yet.
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mar4d: I am surprised you citing "geourdu.com" , "timesofchitral.com", and "thenewstribe.com" as a source. I consider all of them as unreliable. By the way, "geourdu.com" and Geo TV are not related to each other. Also, I would never cite "urdupoint.com" as a source on BLP's. On a different note, I hope you are aware that recently the community has banned the usage of the Daily Mail as unreliable source. --Saqib (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I clarified above, the links I added were extracted from a basic search as a starting point. I will need to take another look regarding the reliability of the Geo and News Tribe etc. links, as (at first glance) they just appear to be normal Urdu articles covering the subject. Also, I am pretty sure Daily Mail wasn't in the discussion. Actually, DM doesn't even have an Urdu version (unless I'm mistaken). Maybe you are confusing it with Deutsche Welle. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point of referring to the Daily Mail ban here is to indicate that we should be cautious about citing any other news website as a source, in particularly on BLP's. --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promotional CV on a subject of unknown (likely limited) notability. WP:PROMO / WP:TNT outweighs any marginal notability the subject might have. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears notable. In addition, this subject has already survived a previous AfD with a Keep. Should not have been brought up for another AfD in the first place.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional article. Thus, delete. Also, the sources aren't independant/reliable.Burning Pillar (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per SouthernNights. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. by User:Fastily per WP:G7 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gobind Prasad Upadhyay[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PROMO. Article makes many claims of significance, but does't do a very good job of backing those claims up with reliable sources. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Denniss[edit]

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

A local historian and teacher with no special claim to notability. The three refs provide no evidence of notability. They show he exists and has written some books about local history but no evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)|pg=Gary Denniss}}[reply]

This article's subject has sufficient nobility for the following reasons:

1. Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Heritage Award for Lifetime Achievement, presented by Lt. Gov. David C. Onley, Feb. 21, 2013. 2. Author of 39 books on the history of Muskoka. Katsheron (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at this time: I am going to look at this from a very narrow point of view, concerning WP:policies and guidelines, that include using historical books and considering Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance, and Wikipedia:Notability (geography), that will add to regional and state prominence, so giving notability to the author. Historical books are important to society, and we can't have a national history without the foundation of local history. 38 books, especially if not self-published, is more than trivial historical prominence, and if we don't consider this important we might as well get rid of all local places such as lighthouses or town historical interests. Because a reference is not "listed" does not mean it does not exist. Regional coverage is acceptable as notability and one book on Texas Rangers would be regional as well as state significance. I have found evidence that some of the books are listed at several libraries, not just in one county, so I am inclined to lean towards regional and state notability. The author wrote an encyclopedia of history that expands coverage to more than just a single town or even county before he died. Note: Angelina Co. historian and author Bob Bowman dies at 77 With such regional and state notability an author with 38 historical books would be notable for Wikipedia inclusion. I do plan to look at the article, as well as sources, for article expansion as well as linking to other relevant articles. Otr500 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF, and WP:NAUTHOR. Any argument otherwise is based in folly. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:NAUTHOR on items 1, 3 and 4, and passes WP:GNG in ref's and reviews. Katsheron (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At best weak keep, probably delete. If he were not so prolific I would certainly say Delete. Most local historians are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well referenced article. Subject is renown in his area and has influenced the popularity of Muskoka to its present coveted vacation destination status.AaronBC86 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— AaronBC86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. This is written like a résumé, not an encyclopedia article, and is referenced far too strongly to local community weekly newspapers in his own local area with no evidence of sufficient coverage in reliable sources — the only newspaper reference here that goes beyond local coverage in Bracebridge/Huntsville is the paid-inclusion obituary of his daughter in the Barrie Examiner, which is not a notability assisting source. And the significant number of references here which amount to "cited in other non-notable author's work" don't assist notability either, because Denniss is not the subject of those citations. The Lieutenant Governor's Heritage Award is also not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be referenced much better than this — as witness the fact that the article creator had to create the winners category for it, because nobody else who's won it has an article on that basis alone. There simply is not the depth or breadth of reliable sourcing here that would be required to get a person of primarily local notability into an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a loss as to why Wikipedia could keep an article like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokuhaku_(album) and not the one for Gary Denniss. Katsheron (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For one thing, that album does appear to satisfy our notability standards for WP:NALBUMS, by having charted in the top ten in a country's national record charts — yes, the article needs to be better than it is before it can be considered a good article, but it does have a valid notability claim for what it is. That's in no way comparable to the question of whether a writer has a valid notability claim, or the depth and breadth of reliable sourcing to support it, under WP:AUTHOR; each topic has to be evaluated on its own standalone merits, and there's no such thing as "if that thing has an article then this one automatically has to have one too", especially if you're comparing two topics that don't even belong to the same class of thing. That's not even comparing apples to oranges, which at least are both fruit; it's comparing apples to antelopes. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - while there is some coverage out there, it does not rise to the level of significant, in-depth sourcing necessary to show they pass WP:GNG. With a high citation count of 3, they clearly don't pass WP:SCHOLAR, and I can see nothing to show they pass WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Breeze (concert)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - I can't find independent reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I de-WP:PRODded this because of the notability of the performers for this music festival/concert series. I am not sure if there is a true reason to keep because I don't know many music WP:RSes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't find much in the way of widespread independent coverage; there's one short piece in the Chicago Reader, several articles in the university's own student newspaper, and a couple of mentions in some college guidebooks. It's not zero, but it's pretty thin. Nick Number (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Magazine Limited[edit]

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

Lacks independent RS of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Bri (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- ref-bombed org spam on a subject that lacks independent sources that discuss it directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Movie in Long Island[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable album. It's not even worth a redirect anywhere because it is a bootleg. SL93 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pink Floyd discography as it is still a plausible search term. Carbrera (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It isn't mentioned there - a redirect would therefore be inappropriate. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Values[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Perhaps too soon. Per article, the band is working on their first album. Mduvekot (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found this, but the source is questionably reliable and I couldn't find any other significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsigned band, presently working on their first album, fails WP:BAND. Sam Sailor 20:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine McCarthy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

References provided lack independence from the subject. No evidence of substantive discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources. KDS4444 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (discourse) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (inform) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A google search of "quareia" shows the community takes this concept and McCarthy seriously. Obviously references could be improved, but deletion seems harsh. I say Keep. Roseohioresident (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quareia, fine. But this isn't a deletion discussion about quareia. The question is, is this person independently notable?? The "references" given here include a link to her Amazon offerings, her personal website, her husband's website, and a quareia website, none of which has independence from the subject (she is one of the admins of the quareia site). An assertion that references "must exist" is one of the things to be avoided in a deletion discussion. KDS4444 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Note for reviewing editors: this Josephine McCarthy is not the one from the previous deletion discussion, nor is she the daytime television cooking show host from the 1950s, nor the Josephine McCarthy Waggoner of the Lakota Sioux, nor the one who shot and killed a man on a streetcar in New York in the 1870s, nor the one who filed bankruptcy in Virginia in 2004.] KDS4444 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources show that she is indepdently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatantly promoting a non-notable person. Already speedied it once. Deb (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salimeh Pezeshkfallah[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails [[WP:NEQUESTRIAN]] as well as WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 19:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randa Mohammed Al-Banna[edit]

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

The General Notability Guideline's requirements have not been satisfied by this person. Being someone's ex-wife is not enough - notability is not inherited - and this poorly sourced Biography of a Living Person has no place on Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Manal bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. The information could be incorporated into the article of her daughter, but I do accept that she no stand alone notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing worth merging - the only parts that have sources are "she's no longer married" and "she has grandchildren" - so at the very most, a redirect is all that should happen. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I think we should redirect it to Manal bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note An IP has wrote comments at User talk:Exemplo347#comment on your comment ref: Sheika randa Al Banna's page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link is now at User talk:Exemplo347/Archive 3#comment on your comment ref: Sheika randa Al Banna's page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacking in independent notability, not sufficient coverage. Dloh cierekim 20:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. As has been pointed out already, notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Busan International Foreign School[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The RfD has sadly been misunderstood. It wasn't about destroying the existing consensus, but merely about formalising it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Please explain. "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." seems pretty clear to me. The consensus is now that these schools need to pass other criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the purpose of the RfD. It was intended to discuss whether we should formalise the consensus in writing. It was not intended to replace the consensus, since that has been arrived at over many years of AfDs. As I said, it's been misinterpreted (probably deliberately by a number of deletionists). And a number of secondary schools have been kept in AfDs since after the consensus has been cited. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did re-read it. Cordless Larry asked "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" The admins that closed the RfC determined "we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC... Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community... Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed." While I understand your inclusionism, you haven't expressed a valid argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm certainly not an inclusionist. Afraid to disappoint you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to comment here; I have not looked at the article in question but am only commenting on the RFC. The phrase per longstanding precedent and consensus is basically what SCHOOLOUTCOMES became over the years. The RFC (in essence) determined that said precedent and consensus was no longer the only reason a school article could be kept, and that the default (GNG) needed to be met. Obviously, there were some caveats to account for possible offline sources, but SCHOOLOUTCOMES has basically been relegated to an OTHERSTUFF argument. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article presently lacks, and I could not identify any, non-regional, reliable, secondary sources to establish the article's notability through the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Izno (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The "schools" RFC, with more than a hundred participants, represents broader consensus than any number of AfD discussions dominated by a small group of school retentionists who repeat the same tired argument. Per the close and the closer's clarification here, the community's consensus is that articles about schools need significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to be kept. Such sources do not appear to exist for this school. Rebb ing 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Los Mismos. Consensus is for redirection. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20 Aniversario (Los Mismos album)[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth sourcing to show that it passes WP:GNG, and nothing to show it passes WP:NALBUM. Redirect was reverted, and a brief discussion happened on my talk page, which, if you're interested, you can find here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect until RSes show up since no notability has been established. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep sources can be found to make the album notable but it will take time due to independent label. Los Mismos are alive but I hardly see them. just add the tag for more sources. 47.202.19.158 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It is not notable. If this is to change, then the redirect could be changed. MartinJones (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. GNG. L3X1 (distant write) 19:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The More I See[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

When the article was first deleted it lacked reliable sources and a claim to notability like a charting album or song. The case is the same here: the page is sourced by YouTube and the group's own page, both not considered reliable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. The page's only references are its website and Youtube. Meatsgains (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's this article on one of their music videos, but I cannot find much else to indicate notability. Gongshow talk 03:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Connection (Kenya)[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable, a search for this reveals no obvious sources other than the one already in the article, and that does not make it notable anyway. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Airlines are not notable by default. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep airline has changed its name again so I have updated the article (cant move it while AfD is in progress) and added a few more refs. An airline that operates a jet aircraft like the Boeing 737 would be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- while scheduled airlines are generally kept at AfD, this is not the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pygott & Crone[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Death notices of a founder, a passing mention as being the estate agents for the sale of an old mental hospital , sponsorship of the local cricket team and mentions in the niche press for an award by other estate agents simply does not add up to notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell) 17:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) 17:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Marginal, perhaps, but I think the subject meets notability per CORPDEPTH because there is sufficient coverage by at least regional media. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Shhhnotsoloud and also coverage in national newspapers Bigmike (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- wholly unremarkable, while the article contains sections such as "Services" and "Awards". Typical corp spam; this content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article and promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the properties whose sale is intermediated by a firm. Local coverage of the firm is inevitable and falls short of WP:ORGCRITE. Nor do I think the industry awards are sufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. A firm going about its business, but fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 17:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SecureMySocial[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Jersey92 with the following rationale "Improved article". Unfortunately, I still see only passing, business-as-normal, routine coverage. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:RS in the article and in Google News exist that establish sufficient notability. Google News shows 236 results not all are good but more than enough are.--Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added multiple WP:RS when removing the ProD. Easily passes WP:CORP with “multiple independent sources.” There are many more to choose from if you click “Find sources” above, but use the ones that are not really WP:INHERITORG references for the founder.--Jersey92 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- lack of independent sourcing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH strongly suggests that it's too soon for this company to have an encyclopedia entry. Sample coverage:

"Stopping Fake News On Facebook Is Actually Simple. Here Is How I ... Inc.com-Nov 29, 2016... When I founded SecureMySocial, my goal was to create technology that ... Since then SecureMySocial has been blocking fake news in such a ..."

This is hardly independent sourcing. The article discusses funding and partnerships; this is not encyclopedically relevant content and belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not one of the WP:RS cited in the article. K.e.coffman Did you look at the ones cited? They are independent. There are literally hundreds of results to the Find sources above. As Clean-up-wiki-guy pointed out "not all are good but more than enough are."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersey92 (talk • contribs) 14:00, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Foebes source used in the article is a contributed story based on an interview; sample:

"I recently interviewed noted cybersecurity expert and columnist, Joseph Steinberg. For over a decade, Steinberg has focused significant attention on the human aspects of information security; his latest invention in this regard is his recently launched SecureMySocial, a novel technology that protects businesses and their employees by warning people in real time if they are making potentially problematic social media posts. Steinberg discussed with me five important steps..." Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That reference was cited only to show who founded it which is discussed by the Forbes writer before the interview and does not come from the interviewee. For that purpose it is WP:RS per WP:IV. Anyway there are others cited and hundreds of other sources, you can find others and improve the article if you want.--Jersey92 (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space, and allow six months for the article to be improved with better sources; if it can not be so improved in this time, delete. bd2412 T 00:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are enough sources that discuss SecureMySocial in enough detail independent of Joseph Steinberg to give SecureMySocial a separate article in Wikipedia. The article by Israeli journalist Gabriel Avner even has the title SecureMySocial stops users from posting stupid statuses. It is obvious from reading some of the others that they discuss SecureMySocial, not just Joseph Steinberg. Thetechgirl (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is not an "intellectually independent" source. In fact, it is a run-of-the-mill advertorial and it is obvious that it relies entirely on the company and their staff for the content, complete with the obligatory "interview" with the founders.

I concur, we really need to set the bar higher than paid-for or least-effort, PR-based on two-paragraphs ads masquerading as press articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam, fails WP:CORP. Not a single one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If we ignore the founder's quotes there is still enough information in the articles and putting them together gives sufficient notability. Articles by journalists in publications are not advertorials. Also, the founder is quoted as an expert in hundreds of other articles having nothing to do with his company, so these appear to be stories about an expert creating something new, not advertorials. Thetechgirl (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can disagree while giving examples and referencing policies and guidelines, other editors might listen. As it is, this is your personal opinion and won't be weighed by the closing admin. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 03:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baton Rouge–Pierre Part combined statistical area[edit]

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

Baton Rouge–Pierre Part combined statistical area no longer exists as Pierre Part micropolitan area was eliminated by US census bureau. AllisonFoley (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because it no longer exists does not not mean it should be deleted - the article just has to be edited to be in past tense. See WP:NTEMP. "Pepper" @ 21:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "No longer exists" is not a valid deletion argument. --do ncr am 15:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Updated the article to reflect it being a former CSA. As an aside, does anybody know where to find when it ceased to exist? Because of Census Bureau data presentation changes I can't locate data between 2009 and 2014, so all I know is that it was eliminated sometime between those dates. A412 (Talk • C) 01:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Still an acceptable article. SL93 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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