Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 August	10 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home (Chris de Burgh album)[edit]

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

Stub album article with little more than a track listing and no indication of notability beyond two charts. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also made no. 19 in Switzerland, 48 in Austria, and 199 in Belgium (Wallonia), apart from the German and UK chart entries mentioned in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted in multiple countries and received multiple significant coverage and further background info that can be used to expand the article: [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 07:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per charting in multiple countries, and the sources provided above. Another failure of WP:BEFORE by this nominator. Like six in a row now. Come on. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multi-charting album. Bad nomination. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this singer-songwriter has had a long and award-winning career of many LPs. Taking out one charting LP will mess up the whole group of articles. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charting in multiple countries clearly meets notability criteria Spl237 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — TheMagnificentist 06:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth (Florida Georgia Line song)[edit]

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

Stub article of song released more than eight weeks ago, with only one reference, and no other indication of notability. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another nomination by this editor that completely failed WP:BEFORE. This is bordering on disruptive. There are basic and obvious "indicators of notability". The song has charted on the US Billboard Official Country chart, and has dedicated, detailed, third party reliable coverage from some of the highest level of sourcing, like Rolling Stone magazine. There's also Billboard magazine that did an article on it. And as nationally televised television network "Country Music Tekevision" noted they even named an entire massive tour with many notable artists on it after the song. Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. In addition to the above sources, this song is getting covered at what look to be established genre-specific websites (e.g., [4][5]). gongshow talk 07:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a big fan of an apparent consensus that if a song has charted it should get a namespace with the information it has charted and bugger all else. However, this article has only existed for 3 days and I see no value in premature deletion. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people enforce charting in that way, but that's not really how its supposed to be. Its more along the lines of "If a music release managed to place on a nations major genre chart, chances are, there's probably at least a few reliable sources out there on it - it's hard for a piece of music to be popular enough to chart, yet be totally ignored by journalists and musical outlets." So its less of a guarantee, and more of a "its likely" as far a notability goes. In this case, it was found to be true, with high level sources like Rolling Stone and Billboard existing. But even without those, the nomination lacks common sense. This is a current single for the band, currently climbing up the charts, off of a platinum selling album, from a notable band on a major record label. Obviously notability isn't inherited, but there are so many indicators that sourcing out there is likely to exist. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Kubara[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources (all sources are player signings, stats sheets name drops etc.). Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship. Yosemiter (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke George (footballer)[edit]

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

Has not played a professional game in the football league Telfordbuck (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 9 August 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. WP:TOOSOON at best, can be restored if / when he plays in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable footballer fails WP:NFOOTY and no in depth coverage. ClubOranje^T 09:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 12:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Serbia (disambiguation). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Serbia (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is redundant to Serbia (disambiguation). All links are already present in Serbia (disambiguation). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate dab page, and the fact that all of its entries are listed on another doesn't change that. If the decision is to delete, then Kingdom of Serbia (disambiguation) and Principality of Serbia (disambiguation) are in the same boat. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the same because "Republic of Serbia" is Serbia (i.e. Republic of Serbia redirects to Serbia, those are the same). On the other hand, Kingdom of Serbia does not redirect to Serbia. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alternative: I wouldn't object to a redirect hatnote in Serbia to the other two. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. I don't follow your reasoning about the other two dab pages. They each have a primary topic and two subsidiary ones and they're all listed in Serbia (disambiguation). What's the difference? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, why did you revert my edit of this page? It's misleading to have two entries that point to the same article and contrary to MOS:DABPIPE. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. It was a mistake. Sorry. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serbia (disambiguation) as this disambiguation page completely overlaps it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tavix. MB 23:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Tavix's analysis, but not with his conclusion – it will end up in Category:Orphaned disambiguation pages (what, we don't have one?) rendering it useless. No such user (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user: Huh? Your rationale makes no sense to me. If this disambiguation is redirected, it would no longer be a disambiguation page, so whether or not it's an "orphaned disambiguation page" is irrelevant. BTW: All disambiguation pages should be orphans, it's the goal of WP:DPL. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: – pages with suffix "(disambiguation)" are normally not orphans – they are linked from hatnotes and other disambiguation pages. On the other hand, we have redirects for the primary purpose that someone, someday, might want to search for their title or link to them. But why would anyone, ever, wish to link to a page named Republic of Serbia (disambiguation)? This page was created only 5 days ago, and Wikipedia had happily lived 15+ years without it. After you redirect it, you might as well delete it per {{db-r3}}. No such user (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, R3 would not be applicable in this situation. Per WP:R3: "This criterion does not apply to...redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that point to a disambiguation page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but the intent was to prevent deletion of {{R to disambiguation page}}s such as Smith (disambiguation) redirecting to Smith; orphaned redirects named Foo (disambiguation) pointing to Bar (disambiguation) are of no use whatsoever. No such user (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as R from incomplete disambiguation Smartyllama (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The organisation which is the topic of an article does not own that article, and the fact that people working for the organisation aren't able to impose their preferred version of the article is not a reason for deletion under Wikipedia policy. This discussion is certainly not going to lead to deletion, so there is no point in keeping it open any longer. (See Wikipedia:Snowball clause.) I have also alerted the nominator to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Lewis College[edit]

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

Fort Lewis College staff unable to make content updates stick. Updates are being deleted by bots or individuals. Senior Fort Lewis College administration has requested that the Fort Lewis College Wikipedia be deleted. Rkcole (talk) 19:51, 9 August 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 August 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is unquestionably a notable college. It is an NCAA division II school with a history dating back to 1911. The school being upset that they don't control the content is not a valid deletion reason. They control the content on their own website. If the school finds things are out of date or wrong they can provide suggested updates to the article on the talk page with reliable sources to back up the information. ~ GB fan 20:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as it's a clearly notable subject and no policy-based argument for deletion has been presented (deleting an article about a liberal arts college would surely be unprecedented). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Our maintenance failures are no valid rationale for deletion, they are an editing matter. This is clearly a notable educational institution. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above users. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Group of Companies[edit]

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

No coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. I can't find secondary sources at all related to the topic. Both the sources cited in the article don't fit the requirements per GNG since the first one could be self-published and the second is not relevant to the topic. It's probably promotional. — TheMagnificentist 06:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, fails WP:GNG and no secondary sources can be found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Martin Page. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 06:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Temper of Peace[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement, with the rationale, "it is notable enough". Currently poorly sourced with one non-rs and the non-descript track listing at the indiscriminate AllMusic site. Searches turned up virtually nothing in-depth about this album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - per nomination. It fails the WP:GNG. AllMusic, while hypothetically a reliable source, doesn't help meet the GNG when its just a bare tracklisting with no actual prose about the album. Open to changing my !vote if someone can provide some better sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with a redirect too, as it would be a viable search term. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look. i'm not a fancy Wikipedian who knows all the rules, but I created this article myself and if you are going to delete it, can you at least redirect it to my own user page? I spent hours creating this article and its sister articles of his other albums (In the Temple of the Muse, Hotel of the Two Worlds, and The Slender SadnesS). I do not understand why you are targeting this article rather than the other ones, because they also have the same notability and source issues as this one. But, again, if you are going to remove this article I implore you to just redirect it as my own article, as it is something I created and I have a passion for. Or heck, why don't you just improve the article so it meets the guidelines? Mackerni888 (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unfortunately, notability isn't something which can be "improved". Something either meets notability standards or it doesn't. When I did my WP:BEFORE searches, I turned up literally nothing on this album. No major in-depth coverage from any reliable, secondary sources. And regarding other articles, that's called a "other stuff exists" argument, which is not really valid in this instance. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can request to WP:USERFY the article, should it be deleted, from the Admin who ends up closing this discussion. I do understand some of your sentiments - I too find it random that "album number 4 of a collection of 5 from an artist" is randomly selective for deletion. But that is the prerogative of any editor who has a good-faith concern about any article's notability. It may seem random, but I wouldn't play up that angle, because, if anything, it may inspire people to nominate the rest for deletion as well. Also, to be clear, the nominator usually argues for an article's deletion because they feel its impossible to improve - third party sources covering the subject in detail are required, and if no journalists ever discussed or reviewed it, it literally cannot meet the requirements of having an article. If you can present sources like that, you can argue that it should be improved rather than deleted. But if there's no evidence that any sources exist, then that argument won't work. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then, yes, I do request the article to be WP:USERFY. But more than just that. If you are going to delete A Temper of Peace from Martin Page's discography page, I also request that all his other less-notable albums also get deleted and WP:USERFY as well. In fact, the only notable album Martin Page ever created during his solo career was his first, In the House of Stone and Light, and being able to 'userfy' these pages would grant me certain liberties to write what I want on them. Plus, it would be awkward and inconsistent if this album got removed but the other ones didn't. If you choose to only delete this article I will see to it that this article and the others end up as user pages under my name. I understand the reasons of notability and I'm honestly surprised these articles didn't get deleted before. I knew there wouldn't be enough reliable sources but I was banking on people overlooking this fact. I'm sorry for knowingly and willingly violating the terms of conditions of this Wikipedia... In my defense, I must say, that this is my favorite musician and I am biased to keep information like this relevant, exactly because of how less-notable he is to the public eye. But I do have plenty of user pages already created, on local information and I do want this information saved on it. Mackerni888 (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, might I suggest that you add the information from all the album articles to Page's article. Then you can simply redirect the pages there yourself (or ask for help on how to do that). Second, regarding the arbitrariness of this nomination – I came across the article during my daily NPP (New Page Patrol). I was unaware of the other articles. It's as simple as that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep General consensus is for musicians who have released enough notable albums (and Page has had at least one hit the charts), we're okay to have an album per article. Otherwise, redirect to Martin Page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't apply to this situation though - as the article creator noted, all 5 of the album articles seem to lack the third party, reliable sourcing necessary to meet the GNG, and 4 of the 5 never charted either. (And the outlier only managed a meager "161st place peak".) That's not enough to warrant a free pass for all album articles to exist. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Page as is typically done with nn albums where the artist's article exists. Insufficient reliable independent coverage to justify a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Roy (ARC)[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Going by the page creations of the user, this looks like a paid editing job. Consider an SPI if the master can be identified. Jupitus Smart 10:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search turned up his website and his LinkedIn profile, and that was it. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Chen[edit]

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

Unsourced autobio of a recent college grad, promotional unsourced claims about skills, almost all sources are college paper, only notable accomplishment seems to be a college group. JamesG5 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - a run of the mill college graduate, it is far to soon to see if she will be notable. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can imagine that someone might become notable for their penmanship, but it's going to take better sources than some testimonials on her college's web site to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nallalamma Temple, Anantapur[edit]

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

A non notable temple, one of literally millions of temples from India. Fails WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No references per WP:Reliable sources.--Vin09 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid deletion rationale. The nomination includes assertion that there are millions of temples in India, which is false. Don't waste our time, just quickly close this AFD. No great prejudice against a new AFD later, if/when a legitimate nomination is constructed. --do ncr am 20:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: "fails GNG" is a valid reasoning. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, then to clarify I suggest closing the AFD simply because the nominator included blatant falsehood in their nomination statement. For purpose of this AFD, I disbelieve everything else they say, too, including their assertion that the article topic does not meet GNG. I doubt they performed wp:BEFORE. --do ncr am 21:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a check before nominating the article. If you dont want to believe me, it is totally fine. But instead of making assumptions, I suggest verifying notability for yourself. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not have any references and is based on original research. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am all for keeping articles about places and buildings in India and I have tried to save many. But this one seems like one of the many small temples for which there is no published history available.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to say that I don't know Telegu and I have only looked at English sources. If there is more information I would be happy to change.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I disregard article lameness, but this one is prety much unsalvagable. It doesn't pass the GNG, and nothing can be constructed from the one source, so Delete. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a total mess, and for lack of verification, notability as a house of worship, and lacking reliable sources. A quick search finds no online sources that might be useful; only one privately-published book even mentions this temple, and there are no sources at all at Google scholar. I have no problem if, as with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parasmaninath_Temple, the temple were to be notable due to its age and other factors - not so in this case. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially, the article was improved during the debate, meaning that more people were convinced it could be retained towards the end. One editor suggested closing as "no consensus", which defaults to "keep" anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Bayne of Pitcairlie, writer to the signet. (1620-1681).[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, though the sepuchral monument may actually be notable. Kleuske (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't currently meet WP standards (it doesn't explain very well who Bayne is, needs renamed, and doesn't fit with usual article format), and I don't think Bayne quite meets notability requirements despite playing a small role in the history of Scotland and its architecture, although maybe there are more sources offline. It would be a shame to lose the information. Information on the funerary monument could be added to Greyfriars Kirkyard (which already has a picture of it): there are some brief sources online e.g.[6] and a bibliography on the churchyard by Historic Environment Scotland[7]. His former residence Pitcairlie House is Category A listed[8] which means it's probably notable, so an article could be created on it. Information on his involvement in the construction of other buildings or his relationships with the likes of William Bruce (architect) could be added to those articles if references meeting WP:RS exist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The subject isn't notable. The article abuses a bunch of primary and unpublished sources which violates WP:V. We already have an article on Greyfriars Kirkyard where information about the mausoleum would exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- Sure in its present form it is a poorly written article. However only one of the sources is unpublished (though this is cited three times). The rest look like reputable works (though older ones). The article is certainly capable of rescue. The question is whether he was notable, and that is where I have doubts. He clearly made enough money to buy an estate; and we are told his house is category A listed; he also founded university bursaries, which apparently ceased to be awarded in 1901. That might just about be enough for notability. If kept, the article could become John Bayne of Pitcairlie or John Bayne (1620-1681), with a capnote placed on John Bayne. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate as Draft: I have added a couple of references resulting from my searches. However, while the article is an entirely worthwhile piece of genealogical research (presumably also in the book mention on the Blogspot link), and I share Colapeninsula's reluctance about losing it, I am afraid the subject's own activities and interactions with others do not seem sufficiently notable in themselves for inclusion. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Noticing that the article was nominated for deletion 21 mins after creation, I wonder if a period with maintenance tags might have been better, to enable/assist the author in strengthening it? I have therefore suggested incubation as an alternative, though still feeling that the necessary demonstration of notability may just not be achievable. AllyD (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is one of those articles I hated to nominate, but If I were the author I would hate it more if it were suggested it needed more work, and it got nominated *after* I had put in more effort. Tagging an article is a good practice, but tagging articles that fail WP:GNG and are up for nomination anyway, just seems like a waste for everybody involved. Kleuske (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no question that the subject is a notable individual. His tomb alone, which survives in Greyfriars kirkyard, Edinburgh, would merit an article. However, the text is not written in, or formatted in, a suitable Wikipedia-style and needs serious reworking. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield and Peterkingiron: We're at an impasse. Would one of you consent to userfy this? I don't think the subject is notable, at all, but either of you could attempt to rehab it. If this closes as no consensus I'm likely to re-nominate it in a couple months to try again. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some superficial reformatting of its text to make it more in line with Wikipedia standards, and also shortened the title (since there is only one article on a person with that name), and added a little bit of new content. The subject is considered notable by numerous old sources - I think it is irrelevant that those sources are sometimes hundreds of years old since notability for Wikipedia purposes does not diminish over time. However, there are recent sources that also opinion his notability, such as "The book provides a biography of John Bayne of Pitcairlie Writer to the Signet, which is a fascinating story in itself" [9], part of a review of a recent book [10] on John Bayne. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My vote was "weak keep" as I have doubts as to his notability. One solution to an impasse is to close as "no consensus", which has the effect of keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire, this person was notable in the 1600's and is therefore still in compliance with WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable. It makes no sense to delete articles we think shouldn't be deleted. The notability guidelines are there to suggest standards and guide our thoughts, not to require us to remove material on worthwhile topics. Thincat (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Co-operative living arrangement[edit]

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

Not seeing it. People have shared accommodations since caves. Giving it a name does not mean it is notable, and this article seems more a vehicle for promotion than an academic exercise in describing a particular pattern of communal living. It doesn't matter what you choose to call it. John from Idegon (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or Userfy to a WikiProject Cooperatives subpage. It feels like an essay in that it provides more of a general feel with current trends and common issues, while not providing much concrete information. I reckon this is partially because the topic is not precise enough to provide much concrete information. If it had more citations I would probably keep it, but this seems to be based on author's experience, and thus WP:OR. That said, I still hesitate to delete without better knowledge of whether the content here is already covered in other related articles, and hope that WikiProject Cooperatives will take responsibility for merging it appropriately. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: If possible, it would be great to rename it to "Co-living", analogous to "Co-working" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coworking Given that it's an age old phenomena according to you, I would assume it's worth acknowledging it with a modern term. also I am not sure if you guys consider Google trends data, but it shows that the search interest in the term coliving has increased over time. Dev098 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dev098: What's the article scope you're imagining? People live together in college, due to economic hardship, because they are members of a family, or to express their values. These are fairly different scenarios with fairly different dynamics, but are all people living together. This article uses terms like "Frequently" so much because Coliving is not a specific social structure in cultures this article is talking about. It's just something some people do, which may or may not change the nature of their relationships and habits. If you want this article to continue, I suggest finding scholarly sources that make more precise claims. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sondra.kinsey: The motivations to live together in a shared community setting maybe different for different types of people around the world. For example, students do it to save money as well to create meaningful relationships as most of them don't have families in that city. On the other hand, there is a cult of global nomads who travel around the world living in co-living spaces in order to meet other like-minded people and collaborate on work. Mostly these are freelancers for programming and design. In my opinion, the article can be renamed and edited further with references to make it more legitamate. I'll work on doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev098 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete What I'm seeing is that the phrase is used in a very generic sense, not as the kind of specific term for strangers living together in a single household: people talk about villages, communes, even prides of lions. "Sharing an apartment with friends" is a thing; this is just any kind of coordinated life together by anything. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fork of Co-housing, which is a thing. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gizem Öztaşdelen[edit]

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

I can find nothing that shows they pass WP:GNG. The sources on the page are just lists and passing mentions as best I can find. Beyond that they also fail WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - She appears to meet WP:NHOCKEY #2. When you say "they" - what do you mean? Hmlarson (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I say they I mean the subject. As for NHOCKEY #2, that applies to leagues that existed before professional hockey existed in the 1800's etc. And in the communist countries where "professional" leagues did not exist as their "amateur" leagues were essentially their professional leagues. Professional leagues exist in the world now and she isn't prevented from moving to play in them (as citizens of the communist countries were), so she has the ability (if she had the skill) to play in them. This is spelled out in the link NHOCKEY provides to show what leagues meet each criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Mm, you've seen this self-same response on at least one other recent AfD, Hmlarson, addressing what criterion #2 means. That being said, let me clarify further: NHOCKEY provides no presumptive notability to any level of women's competition. The only SNG that pertains to women's hockey is WP:NOLYMPICS, since all competitors at the Olympic Games are presumptively notable. To date, the Turkish women's team has never qualified for the Olympics. Ravenswing 21:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG, the blizzard of sources notwithstanding. Ravenswing 21:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NHOCKEY is not relevant here as she passes WP:GNG based on the strength of the sources from Turkish language media. It would be helpful if some one more familiar with the Turkish language could fix up some of the sources, and add more information from these sources to improve the article and make notability more clear to people who do not want to search Turkish language media to see a demonstration of WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alright, let's run down the list of the various Turkish-language cites in the article. The first such is about the subject's father, and drops her name only by way of "His sister Gizem Öztaşdelen also said that the clubs that they used to have had problems between their clubs."
The second includes her name in a multi-page list of engineering students, and it's a post of the classes mid-term grades.
The third is a mere namedrop in WP:ROUTINE a long list of results from a particular junior-level competition.
The fourth is the subject's mention on a table listing a few hundred Turkish ice skating coaches.
The fifth is the same cite as the first.
The sixth is a national team roster.
The seventh is a mention in a single sentence in a match report.
The eighth is a broken link.
The ninth mentions her name in a roster list.
Her namedrop in the tenth and eleventh (they're both copies of the same piece, so why you set them up as separate cites I have no idea) is "Our first goal in the Irish Match came from Gizem Öztaşdelen."
The twelfth is a mention in a roster list.
The thirteenth (and sixteenth, them being the same article) is a single mention in a match report that the subject was injured in the game.
The fourteenth (and fifteenth, them again being the same article) is about the hospital scandal mentioned, but restricts mentioning the subject to "Gizem Oztasdelen and Betül Taygar, who are allegedly hostage in hospital because they can not find 300 euros, have expressed their regrets in the news and they have reported their experiences to the Federation in writing."
The seventeenth is a simple: "The most valuable player in the league; While Gizem Öztaşdelen was in the Millennium Skating Club, the best goalkeeper was İlknur Dilmaç from Ankara University Sports Club."
The last one is a broken link.
That just burned 45 minutes of my life I'm not getting back. Not a single one of these provides the subject the "significant coverage" the GNG requires (indeed, it wouldn't add up to a cite passing the GNG's muster if you crammed all of them together), and it seems like LauraHale just went for any Turkish-language cite she could find namedropping the subject without bothering to examine them. Ravenswing 18:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing's comment above. Deadman137 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom-withdrawn and redirect to Linkin Park discography#LP Underground extended plays. (non-admin closure) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Underground 4[edit]

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

Because this was recently created I'm not going A7 it, however I can't find anything to prove this band (?) is notable L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crow and ArcticDragonfly:, Should I just redirect it and NAC this or wait until we get some more eyes on this? thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty standard to redirect an album that's not otherwise notable. I think if you RD and close it as such (essentially withdrawn agreeing with all commenters) it wouldn't cause any issues. The whole reason to redirect is that if someone were to come along and write a proper treatment of the subject, they're free to do so. Crow^Caw 18:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Linkin Park discography#LP Underground extended plays. The band is certainly notable though this particular album may not be independently so. Until recently we had an article at LP Underground 4.0 which was similarly redirected due to its being mostly fancruft. Crow^Caw 18:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: it's just a copypaste of the track list without any formatting. The album doesn't seem notable. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Donovan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't come close to meeting the notability requirements at WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County council is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not showing strong evidence that he's received enough reliable source coverage to clear the notability conditions for local officeholders — it depends far more strongly on primary sources and raw tables of election results than notability-assisting coverage, and the few acceptable sources are just the expected level of coverage that any county councillor in any county could always expect to receive in the local media. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Elected official, but a county commissioner of a rural and lightly populated region of Washington state. Not seeing a pass due to Assistant Professor status. This might be a TOOSOON situation, of course, but I'm not seeing enough for a Keep as things sit. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rud Browne[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County council is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not showing strong evidence that he's received enough reliable source coverage to clear the notability conditions for local officeholders — it depends far more strongly on primary sources than notability-assisting ones, and the few acceptable sources are just the expected level of coverage that any county councillor in any county could always expect to receive in the local media. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satpal Sidhu[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County council is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not showing strong evidence that he's received enough reliable source coverage to clear the notability conditions for local officeholders. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Bbny-wiki-editor has made a compelling argument, but unfortunately it is based on the presumption that there could be sources, and several editors rebut this squarely. Tridentman123's drive-by "keep per" argument is not particularly weighty. So I interpret this a narrow consensus to delete.

Given that the article subject predates the internet, no one should interpret this AfD as a prejudice against re-creating this article with more extensive sourcing that would meet the WP:GNG, if not WP:BASE/N. A Train^talk 08:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tex Sanner[edit]

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

PROD removed with no reason given by the article's creator. Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. WP:BURDEN is on the article creator to provide sources. One MiLB.com story isn't enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources listed. It seems highly unlikely that a guy who played ~15 years of professional baseball didn't generate enough coverage to pass GNG, even if those sources aren't readily available online. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources listed seem to confirm this isn't a hoax, but doesn't provide deep, significant coverage. WP:BURDEN is on the article creator to find these sources that may or may not exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of whether this subject is notable - I am sympathetic to Bbny-wiki-editor's argument, but not convinced given that he never even reached the highest level of the minor leagues - this article seems to have similar copyright issues as Jim Matthews (baseball). In this case the issues seem slightly less concerning (there is only one editor to the BR-Bullpen article here, who may be the same as the Wikipedia editor who started this article) and there are some small differences between the Wikipedia article and the BR-Bullpen article (although that doesn't really matter if the GNU license of the BR-Bullpen article is not compatible with Wikipedia's license). Since I reported the Jim Matthews article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 August 3 and that remains open I will hold off on taking action on this one until the Jim Matthews issue is resolved. Although if someone else feels that action is needed on this article, they should not let my forbearance impede them. Rlendog (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The official Wikipedia policy is here, especially in the section WP:COPY#Additional availability of text under the GNU Free Documentation License. Rlendog (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sympathetic to Bbny-wiki-editor's argument, having a sharp and longstanding disagreement with the bulk of the baseball editors on the premise that someone can play an inning for MLB and be presumptively notable, where someone who plays a thousand games in a major metropolitan area isn't as long as it's a minor-league city. But that being said, the GNG isn't satisfied by asserting that sources might exist. It's only satisfied by demonstrating that they do exist. That hasn't happened here. Ravenswing 17:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bbny TridentMan123 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The highest level of baseball Sanner played was Double-A. He wasn't good enough to even sniff the Majors. We have to draw a line somewhere, and he's well below that threshold. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dieterich[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Sources cited are either not reliable or primary. My searches have not turned up anything better. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for no real claim of notability and practically all web sources. Is this a pay-for-play article? Agricola44 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User is a paid editor, but I removed the tag from the article as they have declared COI on their user page (admittedly this was retroactive), which AFAIK is completely in line with Wikipedia policy. HelgaStick (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire article consists of sentence after sentence of "And then, Dieterich did another unremarkable thing." And the only footnote that looks from its formatting to be a reliable source (supposedly a New York Times article) is actually a paid advert for a TV series in which the two paragraphs about Dieterich read jarringly like an advert-within-an-advert. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Although I agree with Eppstein's comments about the tone, there do seem to be a number of notable instances mentioned – such as talking at the United Nations and Congress. But I would say that the article definitely needs to be trimmed of fluff. HelgaStick (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have started an SPI about HelgaStick's !vote above. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — TheMagnificentist 06:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyra (virtual assistant)[edit]

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

I am employed by Artificial Solutions, the creator of Lyra (Virtual Assistant), (formerly Indigo (Virtual Assistant)). Our company is in agreement to remove traces of the name "Indigo" online where we are able to do so. As this article will not have any recent links to the name Lyra, and as we are obligated to remove the "Indigo" name, I propose that this page be deleted. Because the page is unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic, I suggest it be deleted.Justin.mota (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.mota (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per not agreeing with any of the above. see: http://www.hello-indigo.com/ where it clearly was called indigo before, a fact which will forever be a fact. also see: http://www.androidauthority.com/best-personal-assistant-apps-android-667299/ and https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/06/review-indigo-brings-siri-like-conversation-to-the-android-platform/ and https://en.softonic.com/downloads/indigo-virtual-assistant. These are sufficient references to prove the notability of the article and justify it being kept. The page is a stub, and does need improvement, I suggest you ask someone to improve it, perhaps you could get the article expanded by publishing some new information on a primary source, or do a press event to get coverage in a reliable source. This would allow editors to improve the article. If the article was better written, your company might not feel the need for it to be deleted. Please also read: WP:CONFLICT and Wikipedia:No legal threats to understand how you can legitimately influence the article.

I am a Lawyer and unlike some, I do understand that you have legal obligations to conform to. In this situation you can legitimately say that this is a online reference you cannot remove, since even if the page is 'deleted', it will still be stored on Wikipedias servers and published anew on Deletionpedia (not affiliated to wikipedia). as you are no doubt aware, you can have the google search link to this page removed from google searches by google on request (write to google for this). Searches for 'lyra virtual assistant' and 'indigo virtual assistant' provide plenty of links.

You can ask more questions on my talk page. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based solely on provided reviews of original Indigo app. I found nothing better to shore up notability under the Indigo name, and absolutely nothing which covers the app under the Lyra name. But the app does (barely) meet the notability standards. Justin.mota: While you may want or need to remove mention of the Indigo name from your web site or advertising for marketing and/or legal reasons, you can't undo the app's notability under whatever name, and the former name is a verifiable fact which rightly belongs in an encyclopedia article on the subject. --Finngall ^talk 14:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by RHaworth. Reason: G11. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miraj group[edit]

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

Non-notable company failing WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- promotional cruft, created by a SPA Special:Contributions/Davidhall007, cited exclusively to the company. I'll request a G11; let's see if this takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadal–Wawrinka rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NPSORTS, sports rivalries are not inherently notable. There's nothing to indicate these players have a particular, notable rivalries. Not in the least through Wawrinka's inconsistent form in major tournaments. They do not have had an unique amount of encounters in tennis terms. They are merely competitors. T v x1 13:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wawrinka just doesn't have quite the cachet to keep up his end of a rivalry from a press perspective. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another me in the world[edit]

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

Poor, unwikified, unreferenced and a totally forgotten about article about a film that seems to fail WP:NFILM. Features in only one English language source: [11]. This appears to be a press release anyway. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Found the Chinese name for it, 世界上的另一个我, which helps with sources but still unable to find anything that convinced me it is notable. Is the sort of thing that could be notable – a documentary on national TV – but need some evidence of it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is not a film, it's a factual television series on a channel with nationwide distribution. WP:NTV says "an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on ... a cable television network with a national audience", which would be the North American equivalent of this. So it's as notable as the 200+ articles in Category:Discovery Channel shows and we should be aware of WP:BIAS. I was expecting this to fail for lack of WP:RS, but it's been the subject of articles on the websites (and just possibly the print editions) of People's Daily (via Xinhua: [12]), China Daily ([13]), and Nandu Zhoukan ([14] which I take to be a competitor of Southern Weekly). The article's a mess, but it's fixable. Matt's talk 08:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I boldfaced "English language source". Many of the articles that I have taken to AfD in the past few days are not articles about things in the English language world. It is very difficult, this, and it shows the need for more people who are interested in cleaning up articles and are from countries where English is not the majority language. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My name is not dave, thank you for trying to clarify your point, but to be honest I can't follow it. WP:GNG makes clear that "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." This is not an encyclopedia of the English language world; this is an encyclopedia in English about the world. You seem to be implying that WP:BIAS should be a policy, not a flaw, which can't possibly be your intended meaning! Alas, even native speakers fail to communicate with one another sometimes... Matt's talk 10:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, indeed not. I was just highlighting the struggle we have with articles like this, which will typically be in another language than English. This edit I made about Chechnya, for example; the incident in question, it seems, was barely reported in English language sources that are published outside of Russia. Thanks to me learning Russian, I was able to add it. The benefits of knowing another language! ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know we're in agreement. Yes, we definitely have more problems with non-English speaking countries, which is why I sometimes patrol AfD/China. Internet censorship is also a particular problem with articles relating to China and Russia, as I'm sure you know. Matt's talk 11:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chem4Word[edit]

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

No WP:RS and I could not find anything additional. Fails WP:NPRODUCT. shoy (reactions) 13:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding any independent sources that give this any depth in terms of notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the only notable independent source I can find on the topic - there's pages on the Microsoft website too for it, like this, of course. Whether these alone make it notable is up for debate... I've been unable to find any depth on how commonly used it is, either, but it does seem to be the only tool of this sort in Word. Keira 1996 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing just that one independent source, nothing really seems to stick out in terms of notability. If they were giving a decent overview it would be one thing, but it's more of a blip about going open source, and that's it. I'm still at the point that the program could be nested in the Microsoft Word article if any content passes WP:DUE, but that's an even lower bar than GNG in this caes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom's point.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hardly a notable enough feature of Word to merit its own section in that article, and there doesn't seem to be a general article for Microsoft Word addins to merge this into. Source I provided earlier is, per Kingofaces43, not itself enough to merit inclusion, and there doesn't seem to be anything further by a third party RS. Keira 1996 03:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the announcement of the beta release from 7 years ago. This is another. As a user of the product, I don't know why it hasn't gotten more press. It's definitely useful to chemists. I'll have to ask other American Chemical Society members to weigh in on this. kkolack 15:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to keep are largely that there is sufficient media coverage, but the majority of the discussants felt that the coverage was from local media which report on local politicians as an obligatory function, and thus this coverage does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG.

There was a reasonable suggestion to redirect this to Whatcom County Council#Councilmembers. That suggestion had some support, but there were also people who argued against the redirect, noting that the connection to the county council is transient. So, I'm not going to include the redirect in the consensus. At the same time, there's no prohibition against somebody creating it on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Brenner (politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Not enough sources available to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County council is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL. The lowest level of office that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article to every holder of that office is the state legislature, not county anything — but the sourcing here is pretty much the routine level of coverage that any local officeholder could simply be expected to generate in the local media. Most of it, in fact, namechecks her existence while not being substantively about her to the required degree — and while there are a few that are substantively about her, there aren't enough of those. To be deemed notable just for serving as a county councillor, the bar she would have to clear is that she could be shown as significantly more notable than most of the tens of thousands of other county councillors across the United States and Canada and England and Ireland who don't have Wikipedia articles — but the sourcing here isn't demonstrating that at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the Wikilink to WP:ROUTINE in the above !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that warranted a special attention-calling reply being...what, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county council members are not default notable, nothing else to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that county council members do not automatically get notability, however this person is certainly more notable than the average county councillor. Whatcom County has a population of over 200,000 people (ranking 306 out of 3000+ counties in the US), and the council has recently been involved in decisions that have national and global impacts^[1]^[2]. As a council member, this person is notable as a pivotal swing vote, and for her unusually long tenure on the council, and for being the only woman on the council. I know that these are all very marginal arguments, but we should error on the side of providing more information to potential readers, rather than to aggressively follow WP:NPOL as a rule rather than a guideline. I don't see the harm in keeping this page and letting it continue to grow, while watching it closely. This is all publicly available information, but there is no place to get all of this information in one place from a neutral source, other than on Wikipedia. Why not allow Wikipedia to be a source of information to help voters be more informed? Almccon (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The population of a county is irrelevant to whether a county councillor gets over NPOL or not; according to your rankings, there are 305 counties larger than Whatcom, whose county councillors would thus be more notable than Whatcom's — but they still mostly don't have articles. And to make Brenner more notable than the norm, it's not enough to just show that she's voted on stuff you deem nationally important — she has to be the subject of a source, not just namechecked within a source whose primary subject is something else, for that source to count toward GNG. At any rate, when it comes to politics our role is to be a source of information about officeholders at the federal or state levels, not necessarily the municipal — the argument that we need to be a source of information for everything voters might want to know would also apply to town councillors and school board trustees and non-winning candidates for political office and other local committee members, which are also classes of people that we don't normally accept as notable, and is not unique to county councillors in Whatcom County. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that county size is unrelated to notability is logically refutable by thought experiment, as a county with a larger population will be correlated with an increase in media attention to that county. Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All county councillors in all counties always get media coverage, because covering local politics is local media's job. Notability at the county council level is not "media coverage exists" — it's "she can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm because a lot more media coverage exists than we could routinely expect". And that's not what's been shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE applies to events. County counselors are never events. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained to you multiple times before, WP:ROUTINE is not a question of whether the article topic is an event or a person — it is a matter of the context in which any particular piece of coverage is being given. ROUTINE does include examples such as wedding and death notices and crime logs and local-person-wins-award stories, which are types of coverage that pertain to people. And WP:EVENT does also contain other content which makes clear that it does not apply solely to the question of whether an event qualifies for an article about the event or not, but also the question of whether or not certain events are notable enough to warrant being addressed in articles about people, such as whether or not a politician's article needs to include content about every single time they ever attended an event to hand over a giant novelty cheque representing a government donation. So no, ROUTINE is not irrelevant just because Brenner isn't an event — because ROUTINE isn't a question of whether she's an event or not, it's a question of whether the thing she's getting coverage for is a notable event or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are not case law. A history of non-policy-based closes does not justify continued non-policy-based closes. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to WP:ROUTINE, it is a redirect to WP:Notability (events). This guideline applies to whether an event article should be standalone or redirected to a larger topic. The WP:N nutshell states, "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources...". Nor does GNG have a formula for discounting sources as "routine". Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (events) plainly states that it also addresses matters such as whether an event is notable enough to make the people involved in it notable enough for Wikipedia articles or not, and WP:ROUTINE plainly includes examples, such as wedding and death notices, crime logs and stories about local people winning local awards, that speak to whether those "events", or their attendant "coverage", constitute substantive sources for the purposes of getting a person over GNG. If you'd prefer that I link to run of the mill instead, then consider that done — it absolutely also applies here, because there are tens of thousands of local county councillors across the United States and every last man-or-woman jack one of them is sourceable to some degree, but there's no way that Wikipedia could feasibly maintain articles about every one of them, and therefore the key to getting one into Wikipedia is to demonstrate that she's somehow a special case over and above all or most of the others. But I'm not incorrect about how WP:ROUTINE works: you are. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a valid issue about maintainability, but Wikipedia has yet to mature to the point that we have operational definitions to apply the concept. People are not produced by a mill. The applicable policy is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The topic here is a part of the history of the world, and we know this from reliable sources. The topic is not, from the viewpoint of history, a statistic or an event that lacks the viewpoint of history. Unscintillating (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person who has ever existed at all is, by definition, part of the history of the world — and a good many people have been documented in reliable sources without having accomplished anything that would they would qualify for an encyclopedia article for. I would qualify for an encyclopedia article if "reliable sources have noticed me" were all it took, and so would everybody who was ever president of a condo board or a church bake sale committee. All parts of history too — just not notable parts of any history that requires dedicated international retention. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No one disputes that this politician has been written about over a 25-year period of time in reliable sources. There is a question of if the topic should be a standalone article or merged somewhere, but since there is no discussion of a merge, the only remaining alternative is a "keep". Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every county councillor in every county has always been written about by media, because covering local politics is local media's job. The key to making a county councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to show that she's gotten media coverage, because every county councillor could say that — it's to show coverage which demonstrates a reason why she could be considered significantly more notable than the norm for an otherwise non-notable level of office: a reason why she could plausibly claim to be one of the most important county councillors in the entire United States, not just local coverage of her doing normal county councillor things. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL#3 states that a "local official...can...be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article' ". There is no requirement of exceeding some norm, so you can adjust your understanding of what constitutes a notable local official from "significantly more notable than the norm" to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". By this means I hope you now agree that the topic here is notable according to our standards. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to adjust anything — you need to familiarize yourself with actual practice at AFD. Every single county councillor, city or town councillor, school board trustee, etc., who exists is always the subject of some degree media coverage, because covering local politics is local media's job — but Wikipedia has an established consensus that the local level of office is not an NPOL pass, and thus a politician at the local level of office does have to be demonstrated as significantly more notable than the norm for that level of government before they qualify for a Wikipedia article. It is not enough that some media coverage exists, because every county councillor would always qualify for an article if "some media coverage exists" were all it took — and so would the woman who lives a mile down the road from my parents, who got some media coverage a few years ago for waking up one morning to find a pig on her front lawn, and so would every teenager who ever got a human interest piece written about him in the local media because he tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes. So no, the existence of some media coverage does not confer an automatic GNG pass on every single person who ever got any media coverage at all — the coverage still has to be in the context of something that satisfies a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is neither conferred nor bestowed. Since notability is not conferred, giving examples of things that don't confer notability is setting up and knocking down straw men. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've claimed, "The key to making a county councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is...to show coverage which demonstrates a reason why she could be considered significantly more notable than the norm". If you think that "significantly more notable than the norm" should be a consideration for AfD, what you can do is write an essay. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i don't need to write an essay to propose that an inclusion criterion that's already well-covered by WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL should maybe become the consideration that consensus has already established it as being. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've quoted from NPOL and shown that it defers to WP:GNG. WP:GNG "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"; limited by the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL does not "defer" to GNG. GNG and SNGs operate in tandem, not as mutually contradictory alternatives to each other. Yes, a person requires a GNG-satisfying volume of media coverage to qualify for a Wikipedia article — but that GNG-satisfying volume of coverage does have to either be occurring in a context that satisfies an SNG, or go really far beyond the scope and range of what could merely be expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stated, "I've quoted from NPOL and shown that it defers to WP:GNG. and your reply is, "NPOL does not 'defer' to GNG". But the reply does not integrate the quote I provided. So repeating my previous sentence with the quote, it says, "WP:NPOL#3 states that a 'local official...can...be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article' ". If readers want to know the relationship between the GNG and SNG, this is found in the lede of WP:N, where GNG and SNG are independent paths. Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, GNG and SNG are paths that operate in tandem, not independently of each other. Lots of people have claimed to pass an SNG that they really didn't, so an SNG pass still requires reliable sources to support it and cannot just be claimed without sources — and lots of people have gotten media coverage for reasons that are not remotely encyclopedic, such as the various examples I've given in other comments here: the woman a mile down the road from my parents who found a pig in her front yard, presidents of condo boards and church bake sale committees, bands who play the local pub every Friday but have never accomplished anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC at all, winners of high school poetry contests, nine-toed amateur football players, every non-winning candidate in every election ever held anywhere at all, and everybody who ever worked as a DJ on any radio station. So to pass GNG, the coverage still has to demonstrate a substantive reason why the person would merit an article. It is not enough that media coverage exists, because media coverage exists of lots of people who don't actually have any substantive reason for belonging in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the sort of IMPACT or WP:SIGCOV that could make a county-level politician notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (partly as the devil's advocate). This does meet WP:GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The news coverage is both local in nature and WP:MILL, but neither of those are relevant for GNG; it discusses her (25+ year) history on the council thoroughly. As far as WP:NPOL, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." is likely. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone direct me to where this significant coverage is? Because of the sources in the article(ignoring the blogs and other self-published references), there are a lot of simply trivial mentions, such as the only thing in article is simply mentioning her as a member of the council, a mention she was the lone no vote for this or that vote, a mentioning of her participating in a sit in, or a mention she is running for office. There are a few that have more than just 1 line, but so far in this AfD the two sources provided don't even mention her. I have tried different searches trying to filter out Barbara Brenner the cancer activist, and other Brenner's who show up above this one, but either I am doing it wrong, or there isn't a significant amount of coverage out there as I am seeing just the same type of trivial stuff already mentioned. If one of the passes GNG votes could directed me to where they are seeing it, then I may change my vote. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- An interview at [15] has detail on her; but it's a primary source. There's plenty of WP:MILL news coverage on Google news. There's also non-reliable coverage at sites like [16]. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just added [17] as another minor WP:RS. There's no existing page for Giraffe Heroes Project, but many other Wikipedia articles include it as a source. Also, the primary local paper The Bellingham Herald doesn't have online archives more than about 10 years ago, so it doesn't cover a significant part of Brenner's tenure on the council. There are probably sources that aren't available online. (I know, that doesn't help establish notability) Almccon (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete WP:POLOUTCOMES states local politicians often meet the standard for notability when "if they have received national or international press coverage." All of the reliable sourced material is local in nature and appear to no be "significant press coverage" ("A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists" - WP:NPOL). --Enos733 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)--Ifnord (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete per nom and Bearcat, who reminds us that local politicians will always be mentioned in local media but that their influence (and notability) rarely radiates more than that. --Ifnord (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can any of the delete !voters explain why a redirect to Whatcom County Council#Councilmembers per WP:ATD is not preferable to deletion? Regards So Why 09:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A delete result does not preclude the recreation of a new redirect from the redlink if desired. So the difference between a delete vote and a redirect vote hinges on whether there's any value in retaining title's edit history as a base for potential future recreation — the mere fact that the title is a viable redirect isn't determinative of how the AFD should conclude, because a redirect can still happen either way. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future re-creation of the article is not the only purpose for the edit history. A look at WP:Insignificance shows quotes from WP:REDIRECT#Reasons for not deleting. Reason #7 is, "The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article..." Reason #1 is "They have a potentially useful page history..."

This particular topic IMO is best handled under our policies as part of a list of related biographies, but as is often the case, the editors making the content contributions prefer the simplicity and modularity of individual articles, and the editors making notability arguments (which should lead to merge !votes) prefer delete !votes at AfD, and neither seem to be interested in merging articles into a less-convenient but more-policy-compliant bio list. Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not "best handled as a list of related biographies", either — the "list" is not allowed to contain extended biographical sketches that function like mini-articles, either. The list just contains their names, the end. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for answer's to SoWhy's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP and SoWhy. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think a redirect to Whatcom County Council#Councilmembers is a long-term solution. Once the subject stops being a current member of the County Council, the way the current page is set up, the redirect would no longer be appropriate. (If there were a complete or partial list of former councilmembers, that would be a different story). --Enos733 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Enos733's point is why I prefer deletion to redirect, she isn't discussed in that article, and yes, as it stands her name will just be deleted completely from article when she's replaced. By expanding the article, that issue could be solved. I don't have strong feelings either way about it being a redirect if that happened, but I wouldn't want readers to be mislead, which could happen as it stands. Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As others have said, the redirect is only useful while she is on the council(which could be for a long while, but temporarily either way). The only page that even links to her page is the Whatcom council page that is being suggested as the redirect. While someone familiar with Wikipedia naming policies might search for Barbara Brenner (politician), or see it in search while typing just her name, the council page doesn't have information about her in it's current state. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- subject lacks encyclopedic relevance. Local politicians are rarely notable, and this one misses the mark. The coverage is local and routine. This content can just as effectively be housed on the county's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both local and routine sources contribute to WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. GNG is more than just "media coverage exists" — if "media coverage exists" were all it took, we would have to keep articles about me, my brother who used to be in a band that never accomplished anything notable beyond the city limits of our hometown, the woman a mile down the road from my parents who woke up one morning to find a pig in her front yard, every teenager who ever tried out for his high school football team despite having only nine toes, everybody who ever worked for any radio station, and every single person whose death ever resulted in a paid-inclusion death notice in the newspaper classifieds. If you're going for "GNG passed because media coverage exists", because the person has no notability claim that passes an SNG, then the media coverage's depth, breadth and range does have to be significantly out of the ordinary for the level of significance that their notability claim sits at. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that there are topics to which WP:NOT applies, or that there are sources that are not independent, or that the WP:N lede says that "determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity", etc.; the point is that being local or being routine does not exclude a source from WP:GNG. It is a simple statement. Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's "well-established" that this type of article must meet WP:NPOL as an exception to a surface-reading of WP:GNG. If you object, please comment at the Village Pump. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the lede of WP:N as the authority for the relationship between GNG and SNG. WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..." Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As there is no national, nor international coverage of this politician, as is required by GNG guidelines. The fact that this is a slightly bigger county than others has no bearing on whether or not to have an Wikipedia article or not. More simply, what has this person done that is notable? Nothing more than other local politicians, that's for sure. Valeince (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Raj Khadka[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NACTOR Zazzysa (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Malformed nomination fixed. Regards So Why 10:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Visual Effects Artists are rarely notable unless they are Visual Effects Supervisors (akin to a DP). The subject has not received significant critical attention in independent, reliable sources. This article probably could have been speedily deleted under CSD criterion A7 he hadn't made the claim that he's is a well-known film technician. A claim, which other than by his own website is entirely unsupported.Mduvekot (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Killion[edit]

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

Not seeing notability here. Most sources I found in WP:BEFORE search were namechecks, with the sole exception of this, which seems to be largely based on an interview and also much more about Zales than Killion. Note that the author of this article has created numerous articles most if not all since deleted, publicizing various alumni of The Hill School and numerous articles about facets of the Hill School, all since deleted or redirected. To no surprise, this guy went to the Hill School. Fails WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CEO of a major corporation (F500), and president of a industry organisation. Quite obviously notable Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyungjoo98, perhaps I've missed something. Could you please point me to the guideline that says being a CEO or president of an organization establishes notability? Because I have always thought that what established notability was being written about in detail in multiple reliable sources that are totally independent of the subject. John from Idegon (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, This individual has been cited by many as a "leader" in the African American community, in addition to being a plain old boring F500 CEO and whatnot. In addition, the previous deletion nomination which was remarkably similar to yours failed unanimously, and since that time the article has been improved.
- Hyungjoo98, please sign your posts. A failed CSD says nothing about notability. The standard for a CSD is a credible assertion of notability. Stating someone is a CEO is a credible assertion of notability. At AfD, you have to prove the subject is notable by providing references to multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject that discuss the subject in detail. Your recent additions are either nonreliable sources, or mere job change announcements, which are not discussion in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about failing to sign. I agree that some of the references do not prove his notability, yet do not agree that sources such as the industry trade journals or African-American news sources are nonreliable sources. I would agree that a tag for improvement would be in order Hyungjoo98 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment, this person fufills the criteria of WP:ANYBIO, in the second clause (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field), as a person in the diamond and jewellery industry who turned around a major F500 corporation and made a influence in this field.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article was written for the wrong reason, and, when nominated, made no claim to notability and suffered from WP:CITEKILL. Since then, a shedload of bad sources have been piled on, making the article worse. Buried under all the dreck, however, are three gems.

Nom pointed out [18], which should replace the shorter version [19] currently cited. It has sufficient information about Killion and enough independent analysis by the journalist to tick all the required boxes. Two more, [20] and [21], are shorter, but are arms-length, reliable, secondary sources that address the topic directly and in more detail than a passing mention. All three credit Killion with turning around the nearly bankrupt company, which is what makes him not just another overpaid CEO.

To these three we can add [22], a 764-word profile from earlier in his career. Like most executive profiles in the business press, it's partly interview, but it's not just Killion in Killion's words. It contains interpretation and synthesis by the journalist, making it a secondary source. Several books also briefly cover Killion's role in turning Zales around: [23][24][25].

Bottom line: meets WP:GNG, but nearly all of the sources currently cited (press releases, trade journals, passing mentions, routine coverage, etc.) should be removed, and the above sources should be mined for content to improve the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Worldbruce, You are correct in saying that there is a need for significant improvement, that is why I have suggested a tag for improvement. I would like to ask User:John from Idegon to refrain from making comments on contributors rather than content as per WP:PERSONAL.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to withdraw this in light of Worldbruce's research. Thank you. I'll add some more and close this momentarily. John from Idegon (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Hyungjoo98, I am withdrawing this solely because of WB's research. The article you created, and everything you've added since this nomination, have done nothing to show the notability of Mr. Killion. The fact that virtually everything you've written has pertained in some way to the Hill School is a relevant factor in this nomination, as it is indicative of a strong WP:COI on your part and WP:PROMO is a valid reason for deletion. Since his addition here Worldbruce has nominated yet another article for deletion you created about yet another alumni of the Hill School. You need to take some time off creating articles and read up on notability. One of the best ways to do that is to read AfD discussions. There are many other things to do at Wikipedia besides writing articles. I'd also strongly suggest that the next article you decide to create should not be connected in any way to the Hill School. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone from the relevant WikiProjects would like this restored to draft, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Tarr[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOV to boot. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Recreation of previously deleted article. May be a CSD-candidate for that reason alone. My bad, did not check. Kleuske (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have attracted some notice and was featured by WikiProject Women's History Month. Andrew D. (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:NOTADVERTISING Louise Bradley Design is not known as a significant art collection. None of her solo exhibitions (per her resume, here)have been in galleries of any importance. Part of the text is directly sourced from her own gallery; "At present day within her highly developed visual language, Tarr explores the limits of her canvas; each painting is an authentic world of its own. Her creations are tangible and conceptual, borne of relationships between colour and texture" is not a critical assessment by an independent source but close paraphrasing of a promotional piece on her gallery's website "Within her highly developed visual language, Tarr explores the limits of her canvas; each painting is an authentic world of its own. Her creations are tangible and conceptual, borne of relationships between colour and texture." That same site gives two press mentions; House & Garden (magazine) and Country and Townhouse magazine, which lists as one of its "Secret Suppliers" Cardogan Contemporary, and says "The represent Deborah Tarr whose expressive abstract paintings I use." House & Garden only has "The large painting by Deborah Tarr set the tone for the decoration in the sitting room". Then there is she-files, that only offers half a sentence: "Soho House’s main collection is predominantly black and white, so color in these new acquisitions stands out including the vermillion in Phyllida Barlow’s “Crush” and the cobalt and cerulean in Deborah Tarr’s “Big Sur." That is all the sourcing that is available, and it's not remotely independent or reliable. This is an ad, not an encyclopedic article about a notable subject supported by in-depth coverage. Mduvekot (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood Mall, Westville[edit]

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

Non notable mall with less than 50,000m2 of retail area Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Article is full or promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Amir Azam Memorial Society[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sardar Amir Azam. Mar4d (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Veins (Pakistan)[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in several reliable sources, that too on different stories covering women and transgender issues. [26] [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Mar4d (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only are there mentions, as Mar4d has shown, but there are in-depth profiles of Blue Veins. The organization is extremely high profile in KPK. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that I've edited and expanded the article. See my sources there. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now that the article has been expanded, it seems to pass WP:ORG. The Diplomat source is definitely significant coverage of the org, and the profile at Insight on Conflict also seems significant. I imagine there is much more extensive coverage in Urdu, but those sources would be harder to access. Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Students Front[edit]

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

No coverage found for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have been notable in 1980s student politics. [39] Mar4d (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the group (now moved to USM) was a major player in Karachi student politics in the 1980s (including fighting over campuses with firearms..). --Soman (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources indicated by commentators demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 07:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Students Federation[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found for this org. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and can we get a snowball keep on the various Pakistan student-related AfDs Greenbörg has initiated. The user in question does not seem to research very well before initiating an AfD. DSF was the major student movement in Pakistan in the early years after independence. --Soman (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it will be helpful to give sources demonstrating that this student wing is notable. Greenbörg (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is Google. "In West Pakistan these come into prominence mostly during the periods of student agitation. The most important of these in West Pakistan are : — (1) The Democratic Students' Federation (D.S.F.)." https://books.google.com/books?id=gTRYAAAAMAAJ , p. 8 --Soman (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite notable indeed [40]. This student organisation, as Soman mentioned, was active so many decades ago (when the internet didn't exist) that we have to be extra resourceful when looking for sources. This wasn't much of a problem for this one as the news refs show, but generally for other articles, we do need to factor this in. Mar4d (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. I doubt this is a controversial decision but of course WP:REFUND applies. No suggestion that the article title is a useful redirect to Bobby Vinton. A Train^talk 08:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20 All-Time Greatest Hits (Bobby Vinton album)[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill compilation that never charted or received significant coverage, falling short of WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this brief Allmusic review is the most I could find in terms of coverage; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 07:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A Train^talk 08:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjuman Talaba-e-Islam[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to have been notable in the student politics of Pakistan in the 1970s, when the internet did not exist. Therefore we should rely on other sources like books, to make this a reasonable WP:STUB. Mentioned in [41] [42], [43], [44] (..The student wing of the Jamaat is called the "Anjuman Talaba-e-Islami" and it clashed many times with other groups like the Pakistan Students' Federation of Bhutto's Peoples Party..), Beg & Ahmed, 1973 (A procession was taken out by Anjuman-e-Talaba Islam from Jamia Masjid, Jacob Lines, passing through Daudpota Road it terminated at the Regal Bus Stop. The processionists carried banners declaring "We are with Syrians and Egyptians"...) etc. Mar4d (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is the student wing of JUP. "Anjuman Tulaba-e-Islam This is a Barelvi student organization with a network in many important educational institutions. Grouping in Jamiat Ulema-e- Pakistan has led to differences in this organization also. The group supports Maulana Shah" [45] "Similarly, Brelvi madrasas have been supplying political workers to Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani's Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i- Pakistan, and to its students wing, Anjuman Tulaba-i-Islam. to Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani's Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i- Pakistan, and to its students wing, Anjuman Tulaba-i-Islam."[46] "The party's student wing, Anjuman-i Tulaba-i Islam (Association of Islamic Students), established in the 1980s, now controls numerous campuses in Punjab" [47] --Soman (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing adequate sourcing above. In future try searching a little more before nominating for deletion, especially if it is an older topic where the sources might be a bit harder to find. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 07:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murray–Nadal rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NPSORTS, sports rivalries are not inherently notable. There's nothing to indicate these players have a particular, notable rivalry. They have only met twice in the final of major tennis tournament, neither of which had a significant impact on either of the players' careers or on tennis history. They do not have had an unique amount of encounters in tennis terms. There is nothing here that cannot be discussed in a paragraph in either player's article and/or on the dedicated article on the Big Four. They are merely competitors. T v x1 09:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Big Three okay, but with Murray, there's a bit of a dropoff, so his clashes with the others just don't generate the same heat and feverish anticipation (and press coverage, in terms of "rivalry"). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - these two have not had major independent clashes that are documented as an event in themselves. If the pair do something comparable to Federer v Nadal at Wimbledon 2008, we can revisit then, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom who rightly points out that, per WP:NSPORTS, sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Ifnord (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institution of Civil Engineers at UET Peshawar[edit]

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

Local chapters of societies are never notable. No in-depth coverage found for this organization. Just one or two namechecks. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the UET Peshawar article. Mar4d (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kujo Yardwear[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG pr WP:CORPDEPTH. While this might be notable one day it looks to be WP:TOOSOON. There are also WP:COI issues that make this appear possible WP:PROMO (page creator is listed in article as company CMO). Search reveals no coverage other than one cited article in local press. JamesG5 (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Weak Keep : Delete as no significant coverage in reliable news media. Weak keep as a detailed article in The News-Herald (Ohio) seen. BetterSmile:D 09:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Kickstarter is not a reliable source. A press release from an individual's alma mater is also not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Keep~~ Company has citations from The News-Herald (Ohio), WOIO, and other recently added references. While Kickstarter is not an objective source, it exists as a historical artifact of the launch and response of a product. There is no citations (as suggested) from an alma mater (rather, the citation is from a municipally-distributed newspaper). Edit: Disclosure: co-founder of the company whose article is under review - comment meant to help clarify and further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmichaelmartin (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe "Keep" vote above is from the company founder, from a new account with yet more undeclared WP:COI. JamesG5 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of the sources added to the article after the last !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to claim notability and sock puppetry shenanigans, not in itself criteria but a good red flag. --Ifnord (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus discussion on the content, especially the sources added, and not on the creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH; some are primary (Kickstarter) or local, as in "Local resident / our grad does well". Clearly WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power Fill Gas Station[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable business. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - advertising. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Corporate spam about a local gas station. This was probably PROD-worthy, if not SPEEDY-able... Carrite (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11 and tagged as such as what appears to be the informal consensus at this AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Literacy Project[edit]

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

Failed to find any coverage for this project by Aamnat Foundation. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in books, news, web etc. Mar4d (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Party lists in the New Zealand general election, 2017#ACT Party. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Houlbrooke[edit]

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

Local body politician that doesn't meet the requirements for WP:POLITICIAN. Unlikely to unless elected as an MP in the upcoming NZ general election. Nominated due to repeated attempts to recreate the article after redirects Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails NPOL. "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability". Redirect has been reverted by user who either does not understand this or refuses to accept it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might want to consider removing the AfD. I have reinstated the redirect and protected the page from editing, so the disruption has ended. Schwede 66 09:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanas Liquefied Natural Gas[edit]

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

csd G11 Roxy the dog. bark 07:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation. CSD updated. Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tianqingle
Speedied. Deb (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Goss[edit]

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

Dylan Gross while in a number of movies does not meet the GNG. I am very open to changing my mind but I just don't see notability. Also, this was created by a single purpose account. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage found for the subject; does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. gongshow talk 20:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stylorouge[edit]

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

G11/ A7 Material. Not mentioned any Media Coverage. Google search gives Press release or mention of works. Nothing signifies its encyclopedia value. It mentions only work to promote the content. Advertising and promotional in nature. Light2021 (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I have indefinitely blocked the AfD creator, as this AfD was the final straw. I have argued at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#First AfD after this closure what was wrong with the AfD, which also indicates why this article should be kept even if the nominator wasn't blocked. Fram (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. None of the arguments to keep are policy based and they are from low-edit-count users -- however, this was a pretty low-participation AfD even after an extraordinary third relist, so WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 07:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Khan[edit]

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

None of the citations talk about him in detail. The only ones which mention him at all say that he won Mr. Pakistan World in 2013 - and that article failed to survive a WP:PROD in November 2016. A search turned up one or two social sites, and nothing else at all. Fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS while going through the AfD-notice routine, I found that the article had been created by User:MinkyThePet, who has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Narky Blert (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I managed to find two news articles which mention his role in an upcoming film, "Na Band Na Baraati". Here's one, here's the other. Both articles only mention him in passing, though, and I'm leaning towards deletion. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have read the articles below also, and they don't just mention him in passing he is listed as part of the cast, and one article has his picture, he is known for winning Mr. Pakistan world, and there's many blog posts and news articles under his name regarding his winning of Mr. Pakistan World. "Na Band Na Baraati". Here's one, here's the other. *Comment I managed to find two news articles which mention his role in an upcoming film, "Na Band Na Baraati". Here's one, here's the other. I don't know about who started his page, however, I've managed to find info about him and edited his page many times. Also found trademark for his name, as well as imdb credits. This article should not be deleted at all, as is about a real known personality.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsagamma (talk • contribs) 03:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen his Facebook page, instagram page, and also found IMDb credits on him. [48] he was listed as actor here. This page should not be deleted. ~~elsagamma~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsagamma (talk • contribs) 03:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC) — Elsagamma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

formatted as keep !vote L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of info on him online. Just Searching his name brought multiple articles. This page should not be deleted. ~~kkseni~~ — 98.198.4.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Do you happen to be the same person who voted above? KSFT ^(t|c) 20:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this promotional and unsourced autubio. the subject fails to meet WP:ACTORS as yet. if he's reported to have become part of an upcoming film, this bio would fall under WP:TOOSOON! --Saqib (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it looks like he has won Mr. Pakistan World 2013 a Pakistani beauty pageant. Doing a simple search on Mr. Pakistan world brought several news article, multiple wikipedia articles, and etc. I am from Houston and I know of him to be a big socialite. I have seen an article on his movie in local Pakistani print news paper, that circulates in Houston. I have also seen some websites related to this movie. I vote to keep this page! ~~SunnyJim1980~~

— Sunnyjim1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joslyn Davis[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Cabayi (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. I find Tomwsulcer's source links to be compelling, particularly the article dealing with the subject in Forbes. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meiburg's paradox[edit]

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

Google/Book/Scholar searches for "Meiburg's paradox" return nothing; content already covered (IMHO better) in Two envelopes problem Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the two sources, nor any other reliable publication that I can find, mention this by this name. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I can't find any evidence that this idea is actually called by this name. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nomination's assertion that the paradox is equivalent to Two envelopes problem is not at all obvious. Seems like a different thing to me, anyhow. --do ncr am 02:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively. Seems like it can/should be tagged for more specific sourcing. It cites an edited volume on Agent-Based Modeling which is available in a PDF online, but the PDF is not searchable and I don't see which article in the volume covers the topic: a page number would make all the difference! And perhaps the name of the paradox is an issue. --doncram 02:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I'm able to Ctrl-F my way through the book (although this might miss text buried within images, etc.). I found 5 instances of the word "paradox" (pages 10, 154, 315, 424 and 732); none of them look relevant. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an outstanding Keep vote who's caster has not yet responded, so I don't want to NAC this as no consensus. As this was on yesterday's Old Afd list, and no one took care of it, I am doing the final resisting, getting into the 3rd category usually brings in editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as other !voters have noted, no references use this name. The idea that infinite probability distributions cause paradoxes is discussed sufficiently at Two envelopes problem (and more generally at St. Petersburg paradox) and no merge/redirect is needed. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references are not to this problem, in the article, they are used to support contextual statemetns (I'm pretty sure this is true, based on ctrl-f, reading the abstract and skimming, looking in the index, etc). Also, I don't find any Meiburg's doing work in optimal stopping or game theory. Perhaps this is a folk theorem, but it fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. reliable sources exist to expand the article. (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 07:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuddham Sharanam[edit]

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

No references and no text about this movie. Google search shows that it has been announced but not yet released. Film notability is that unreleased films are only notable if production is notable. The only information about this movie is that it will exist in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD Yuddham Sharanam Krishna Marimuthu Naga Chaitanya Sai Korrapati

Daftify or return to author as it not yet been confirmed as filming. It has lots of coverage to improve it so we can let it be worked out out of article space until it meets WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per WP:NFF and WP:NEXIST as Times of India lets us know it is readying for release. Lacking sources is only an issue when they do not exist. Since they do exist [49], correcting the issue is a mater for regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inspiral Carpets. If and when more sources are found, the article can be restored from the history. So Why 10:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 1 Sessions (Inspiral Carpets album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. This Allmusic review [50] is the only reliable secondary source about the album that I could find. It hardly seems like enough. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Would have been reviewed by all the UK pop/rock press when it came out. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not so sure about that assertion, Michig. The UK newspapers are unlikely to have reviewed it, which leaves NME and Melody Maker - and it's far from certain they would have reviewed a Peel Sessions album, there are many of them and they didn't review every one that came out. Richard3120 (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiral Carpets were a huge band in the sphere of music covered by the UK music press. It would likely have been reviewed in NME, Melody Maker, Q, Select, Uncut, VOX, and several newspapers. --Michig (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not nearly as confident as you are about that - they were certainly a reasonably big (I wouldn't say huge) band in the early 90s, but by 1999 interest in them had definitely fallen away, and a Peel Sessions album by them would not have been seen as a major release. I wish I could get to the British Library to check back issues of the music press to see if any of the magazines did review it - I'd think it would be more likely to find something in Q or in Mojo than anything else, given they had the biggest review sections of all the magazines, and included all sorts of reissues and speciality releases. I'm not sure Vox was still going in 1999. I would be willing to put money on the album not having been reviewed in a single newspaper. Richard3120 (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've just seen the article gives two different dates for the album's release, 1999 in the lead and 1996 in the infobox - this needs correcting. Either way, the band was not active at this point, so the record wouldn't have been that eagerly anticipated. Richard3120 (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release date was 28 May 1999, now corrected. I'm sure all the people that bought it might disagree with you. --Michig (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to be proved wrong on this, honestly - if I were in London right now, I'd go to the British Library and search through back issues of the music mags to try and find some reviews, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to do that at the moment. Richard3120 (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Michig should the personal belief of sources be considered a keep rationale? Couldn't I just say, "well, I believe there are sources" for just about any AfD discussions?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm appealing to 'common sense' by arguing that a significant release by a major band would have got enough coverage to justify an article, which would not be the case for "just about any AfD discussion". Unfortunately that sort of sense isn't as common as the name suggests, and just as unfortunately, music press reviews from that era are generally not found online. --Michig (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to merge to Inspiral Carpets. Since we don't currently have much coverage available to base an article on, a brief summary of this release and what's on it in the 'Post-split activities (1995–2003)' section would be sufficient until such time that more coverage is found. --Michig (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although coverage is weak, general consensus is that when a band reaches a significant level of success, we should include all their albums including retrospective compilations or archive releases. Examples: Something's Coming: The BBC Recordings 1969–1970, The 1st Singles Box Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this band to Yes is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Michig's merge proposal is much more plausible and actually follows written guidelines. Just because the general consensus is to keep non-notable album articles for noteworthy artists, does not mean it is correct.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inspiral Carpets per Michig. --Ifnord (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while Michig and I may disagree about the likelihood of coverage existing for this album, I think we are both in agreement that all potential sources will only exist in print form. It looks like this AfD is heading towards a merge, but I've put this album on my list of things to do next time I'm at the British Library in London, and if I turn up enough sources for an article, I'll ask for a WP:REFUND. Richard3120 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. Relisting seems unlikely to generate additional comment. (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 07:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Español Federico García Lorca[edit]

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

I have not been able to find any sources besides http://www.cronicasdelaemigracion.com/articulo/cronicas/educacion-fija-precios-estudiar-centros-espanoles-exterior-curso-2017-2018/20170708142348081046.html, which gives a brief mention, but no other information. I'm nominating the article for deletion, because I don't see how the article can be expanded with information from independent, reliable sources to include more information than that it exists. Mduvekot (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as government sources here, here,here, here and here confirm WP:V. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as verified to exist but not demonstrated to be notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Borderline, but seems to meet GNG and likely WP:CREATIVE as well. Relisting unlikely to generate further comment. (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 07:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Shinick[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced or non-RS sourced information that fails BLP. I did do a search and only found one major source aricle about Kevin Shinick from USA Today. Most other sources are about Superior Carnage comic book or MAD 100 episode on Cartoon Network thus not significant coverage about him. Thus failing WP:Notability particularly significant attention ("sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time") base on the lack of major media articles about him. Spshu (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --Spshu (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award winner, appears to have sufficinet coverage on multiple projects to be notable. Artw (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The single major award won (Primetime Emmy 2010) was for a show (Outstanding Short-Format Animated Program: Robot Chicken) and was not an individual award (say writer or actor). Most coverage is about the projects not on Shinick himself. Spshu (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would degree as to the content of the articles and the usefulness of "cannot mention a project" as a guideline. If references were exclusively about one project or if they failed to mention aspects of his life outside of those projects you might have a good merge argument, but as it is neither is the case. Artw (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both is the case, just being dismissive of my objection doesn't make the article more about him. Spshu (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a solid WP:GNG pass and no good rationale for deletion, sorry. Artw (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to USA Today, there's a smattering of press coverage,[51][52] and his roles in the Mad and Robot Chicken TV series, which may constitute a borderline WP:CREATIVE pass. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (copyright violation). Huon (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drawido[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to improve the sources and clean it up some, I don't really have a view on current state of notability, but I think it's been at least slightly improved in that regard. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 07:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Yerou[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of the myriad fluff pieces about businessmen. Not seeing a single source that would count to GNG in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Particularly per Mduvekot's analysis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Fauves[edit]

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

Seemingly only one notable reference, the others seem to be either interviews or non-notable sources. WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. The relevant standard here is WP:ARTIST, for which criterion 4 states: "The person's work[...] has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". The subject has had a solo show at the Guy Hepner Gallery, an exhibition space that apparently isn't notable enough for its own article. That said, the solo show was written up in Italian Vogue and in Forbes, which may be congruent with "a significant exhibition", but I'm not totally swayed. If somebody can unearth other coverage about the show I'd be happy to revisit. A Train^talk 18:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are some good sources, albeit a tad breezy. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are several sources, but they are all striking similar. All are similarly promotional. Flaunt calls Fauves "The acclaimed Costa Rican artist", and so do pleasemagazine, danskmagazine and Forbes contributor Felicity Carter. What's funny is that no one mentions who gave Fauves all that acclaim. Fauves doesn't appear to have a long historical record of exhibitions. In fact, it's almost as if ‘A Loss of Innocence’ is the only exhibition he's ever had. So acclaimed by who exactly? And where? Nobody knows. Almost all reviews focus on a single exhibition at Guy Hepner. None of the reviews resemble a serious, critical assessment like one might find in Artforum. In fact, the serious art press is conspicuously lacking. This is an artist who is quite effectively, it seems, promoted by his gallerist. That the creator of the article is a paid editor for another page, may be a coincidence and simply mean that they are unaccustomed to writing neutrally, but a clear statement on whether this article was paid for would be most welcome. Mduvekot (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2017-03-22/whatcom-county-extends-moratorium-on-crude-oil-exports

[2] ttp://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/coal-issue-dominates-whatcom-county-election-but-nobodyrsquos-talking-about-it/

[1]

[2]