Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 July	7 July >

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 merge to Vandalism on Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot NG[edit]

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

Not notable enough for mainspace: redirect to User:ClueBotNG and move Criticism to Wikipedia:Bots. groig (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nominator~~. groig (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Author Comment WP:GNG is the rule here I think, you may want to contact the editors on the article's talk page. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)and if it was unclear Keep L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from the nominator above; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I was able to find the following sources, though only a few are substantial: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vandalism on Wikipedia into the fighting vandalism page. The sources are borderline, and this seems like something that could be better covered under the larger topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, are you saying that the BBC and the Verge are borderline, or the amount of sources is borderline? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is borderline. Perhaps it would be better to say I was agreeing with Anarchyte's analysis of the sourcing, but that I think instead of keeping as a separate article, where there is a weak argument for it by GNG, that there is a very strong argument for expanding or improving the coverage at the linked article, and redirecting the bot article to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni and L3X1: FWIW, I'd also support a merge. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'd also support closing as Redirect and merge from history per below. I typically prefer that as a close, but do think there might be content worth merging here, which is why I had that as my bold !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's definitely a plausible search term; Vandalism on Wikipedia seems fine as a target. Simply being name-dropped in publicity pieces is not sufficient for notability; a link to User:ClueBot NG on Vandalism on Wikipedia is probably all the coverage necessary on that page if the references aren't useful there. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Carnes[edit]

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

He appears to only be discussed in passing in the reliable references included, additionally, those mentions typically are followed by a quote of his. Doesn't seem to meet BLP notability requirements. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as both WorldCat (currently linked) and GoogleScholar both give high number of collections and citations enough to satisfy both WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Also, current list of published books is significant enough to show notability in his field. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - His citation count alone qualifies him, what is even more impressive is that his top two cited works are over a decade apart, showing his staying power in his field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Read past edit history of the Patrick Carnes article for more notable information about Patrick Carnes. The article has been modified many times because of editors who are opposed to the concept of sex addiction and try to minimize his work in the field. Patrick Carnes is more responsible than anyone for the conceptualization of sex addiction and the entire field of sex addiction treatment, and that's notable. Artfullheart (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2017 Weis Markets shooting. Per WP:SNOW. We have unanimous support for a redirect to the longer article, including from an IP who claims to be the creator. The nominator is of course free to nominate the pre-existing target article, if he feels the same issues apply. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weis market attack[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. reddogsix (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that statement, why are there several articles for shootings and other newsworth events both past and present? The article isn't one-sides, it isn't trying to uncover something big, so why try to get rid of it? If the article is able to stay up, this tragic shooting can be remembered. - Joinedtomakeonearticle (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EVENT for why some events have articles and others don't. Wikipedia tries to document events of lasting historical importance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Duplicate of 2017 Weis Markets shooting which is a longer and better article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Colapeninsula. Possible A10 candidate as duplicate of 2017 Weis Markets shooting. New article does not appear to add anything that is not in the established article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey so ya thanks for pointing me out to the actual article. I literally could not find it when I googled it or searched here before but now that I see it and it's better than this, go ahead and delete it. I'm the OP by the way I just forgot the password because, as the name implied, I joined just to make that article. 2602:306:C502:6110:92B:D93A:E7A5:40FD (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the more substantial article as suggested by others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Dawda[edit]

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

Non-notable former model lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Performed WP:BEFORE found nothing on Google News. Most of the refs cited fails WP:RS. No in-depth coverage except some passing mentions. No major achievement. Fails notability. --Elton-Rodrigues 15:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Keep Mr Elton-Rodrigues, I guess you didn't check google page 1 and Google page 2to see her what she's been up to, adverts she's been in and musics she remixed and those she featured in. Just that youtube links isn't allowed on wikipedia would have dropped them here for you to check it, you can search for her on youtube to check her Adverts and music features out.

Kindly let me know if there's anything I can do to save the page instead of trying to delete my first major contribution to the community, I spent a chunk of my time putting the page and references together. I need suggestion on how I can improve the page. Thanks. Mode9 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even Top editors like JamesBWatson Indicated at the page's Revision History that there are "claims of significance" to the page, so don't let us just push this to the Bin like that.....I have a target of 450-500 edits and at least 30 page and article creation before the end of December this year /D and maybe by next year hopefully I would be a Top editor with adminstrative responsibility like most you here. Editing wikipedia is kind of cool /D. Mode9 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A claim of notability is just that, a claim. In this case it is a claim without adequate support. A claim has no bearing on the actual notability of the article. reddogsix (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources here are either not reliable sources, or on the rare occasions when they may be in reliable sources they are interviews (I am not even sure the first source here is reliable) so they do not count towards independent coverage. Twitter and facebook, the leaders in the provided google search, are not reliable sources either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DNA Newspaper and Rediff.com are reputed news sources in India. Deep articles in both the mentioned site make it pass notability.But some Clean up needed. BetterSmile:D 03:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

~~keep~~ ever since the page was created it has been modified in over 32 time by different Editors (mostly Top/super editors)adding references, removing text without reference and so many other modification, so I think it pass to be on wikipedia.....Thanks Mode9 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment That has nothing to do with Notability BetterSmile:D 07:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

comment Definately but that shows the amount of improvement the page have gone through since creation. Mode9 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had not intended to take part in this discussion, as it seemed to me that the subject of the article was neither obviously notable nor obviously not notable, and I didn't have any particular opinion as to whether the article should be kept or not. However, Mode9, the creator of the article, posted a talk page comment asking me to look at it, so I have done so, and I will give my observations on the evidence of notability which has been provided.
Bettersmiley suggests we should keep the article because there are "Deep articles" in DNA Newspaper and Rediff. I am not sure what Bettersmiley means by "Deep articles", nor do I know enough about DNA Newspaper to assess to what extent it is a "reputed news source in India", but I do know enough about Rediff to know that much of its content is promotional. However, since Bettersmiley mentioned those two sources as evidence of notability, I had a look for them. There are two references to DNA. (There superficially appear to be four, but one of them appears three times, including once linking to a mirror site, giving a different URL.) One of them merely gives a brief quote from Jasmine Dawda. The other is written in the first person, evidently by Jasmine Dawda. The article has one reference to Rediff. It is a very brief interview, with a total of three questions, in effect an article by Jasmine Dawda but presented in the form of questions and answers. It is full of trivia such as where she bought her handbag from.
Mode9 suggests we should keep the article for the following reasons. (1) The Google search shows that she has appeared in advertisements and has remixed music. Mode9 links to the first two pages of hits. 14 of the 20 hits on the first two pages are Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Linkedin, Instagram, Jasmine Dawda's own web site, vimeo, viyoutube, commons.wikimedia.org, plus.google.com, deletionpedia.org, and a page giving statistics for "jasmine dawda" on YouTube. None of those has the remotest value in establishing notability. The remaining six hits don't do much either: for example, they include a page where the full and complete text relating to Jasmine Dawda consists of the words "Jasmine Dawda"; it looks like a place holder for a possible page on her. Then there is a page on which the full text about her is "We first spotted Twinkle Khanna in high waisted pants at the Society Interior Awards, but it looked no where as great as it did on Jasmine Dawda at the party at ‘Wink’! How fabulous is that jeweled flower detail on her back? Agreed its a little risqué but she wears it really well…" (2) I declined an A7 speedy deletion on the grounds that there are claims of significance in the article. Reddogsix has answered that. (3) The article contributes to Mode9's target for number of article creations in the hope of becoming an administrator. This is not the place to explain why that is not a reason to keep an article. (4) It has been edited over 32 times.

As I said above, before Mode9 asked me to look in here I had no opinion on whether Jasmine Dawda satisfied Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am now convinced that she doesn't. Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:BIO, Just found a few passing mentions does not pass WP:GNG. FITINDIA 17:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Having an article on a different language Wikipedia is not a keep reason: They might have lower standards of inclusion than us or the article on the other project might actually merit deletion there as well Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Maksimov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:59, 7 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has a Russian Wikipedia entry, one language should mean any other language allowed. Echo2017a (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Please take to WP:RFD if you wish. This forum is for articles only. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Summit Ski Resort[edit]

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

Redirect page no longer needed. Only page linking to it has been changed to link directly to the page to which it redirects. Shortsword (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 , nac SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StealthChat[edit]

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

Plenty of references, but only brief mentions or unreliable sources. Also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. gongshow talk 23:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like copy/paste from the company website. Correction, it is copy/paste from the company website (this alone is a good reason for deletion). Pavlor (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was posted in February via AfC and its author was reminded about copyright violation problem. Pavlor (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Prajnanananda Saraswati[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a person that died in 1921. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This book snippet says that he was "quite famous". He's only mentioned in one sentence, but I'm just pointing this out because he might actually be notable. SL93 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This fame probably refers to fame in a very closed circle. --nafSadh did say 06:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7, no claim of importance - GretLomborg (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --06:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R&R Associates[edit]

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

Speedy delete. non -notable irrelevant article. Light2021 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- strictly promotional, with section on "Design and Clients" including copy such as:

The process includes project management, market research, industrial design, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, prototyping, manufacturing support, manufacturing, patenting services, quality system and marketing services.

Wipedia is not a web host for the company's sales brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And temporary salt until reliable sources start raining down and wash it off Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Puaz[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the criteria for notability. Searches turn up blogs, Spotify, youtube videos, all of which should not be used as sources. Citation to the Swahillia version of the BBC [8] is the main page of the website. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Also note that this article has been deleted for similar reasons before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Puaz). SamHolt6 (talk) 17:37, 6 July 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 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 18:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No additional sources over deletion discussion two months ago. czar 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and Czar - GretLomborg (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still fails WP:GNG. A temporary salt may be a good idea, too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantial cover in reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably could have been a WP:G4, as this version is not substantially improved content or source-wise, and its only been just over a month. Also support salting and/or warning the article creator that continuing to do this is considered disruptive and could lead to blocks, as he's created it both times, and participated in the last AFD, so he knows there were problems with it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nominated the first AfD for this article and frankly this "new" iteration has not fixed any of the problems present in the original. Also, I'm not sure if I missed it from the original or it's new information, but the article states that the subject's son is named "Randy Joel", so it looks like a WP:COI case to me. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 19:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uell Stanley Andersen. Judgment call: SoWhy proposes a merge and perhaps we can give that main article the benefit of the doubt. Drmies (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 Magic Words[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The film was not widely distributed. The film has not received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is not historically notable. The film has received no major awards. The film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive. The film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. jps (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The film features two notable New York times best selling authors in the self-help and personal development field, Neale Donald Walsch and Debbie Ford who have both appeared in various films on the same subject matter. The film was also widely distributed by Warner Bros. Digital Distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Starseed (talk • contribs) 06:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rule on Wikipedia is WP:NOTINHERITED which is to say that just because notable people are in the film doesn't mean the film itself is notable. The other claim is that via distribution through Warner Bros. Digital Distribution, the film is therefore "widely distributed". However the digital distribution subsidiary of Warner Bros. releases so much content online that I don't think this is a valid point. "Widely distributed" media needs to have independent evidence of distribution in a fashion that is comparable other "widely distributed" content which Wikipedia has articles about. As it is, the only evidence I can find that the film is distributed through this company is through the press releases of the filmmaker, and independent (or even Warner Bros.-based) statistics about the distribution's reach is information I cannot find either. jps (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot finding anything to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment:The film 3 Magic Words was based on the classic book, Three Magic Words (1972) by Uell Stanley Andersen and therefore is historically notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Starseed (talk • contribs)

The book is non-notable, and was written decades before the movie was made. It has nothing to do with historical notability per WP:NOTINHERITED among others. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also that does not establish notability for the film, only that it could be included as an adaption of the book, in the books page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Non-notable. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to fail WP:NFILM. Not clear Uell Stanley Anderson meets WP:BIO either, but as with anyone who died before the Web, more research is in order... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelt Uell Stanley Andersen. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And is about as unsourced an article as I have ever seen. I am getting a strong AFD vibe from that as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Finding reviews of the film is difficult which is an indication of low notability. —Paleo Neonate - 03:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Uell Stanley Andersen. Afaict he is notable enough. Regards So Why 07:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NCT (band). (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 08:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Tae-il[edit]

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

I'm doing a multiple page nomination for the remaining NCT members. I'm not too sure who is notable outside of NCT, and even with Ten, he did just an SM Station song. Tibbydibby (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I am also nominating the following related pages because as mentioned above, the members aren't notable outside of NCT as of yet. There is already a discussion in place for Mark, but I'm nominating the other pages:

Tibbydibby (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all – all members fails WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, no solo musical releases, no acting career etc. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article: as stated above no member of NCT is yet notable enough to have an indiidual article. Abdotorg (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: I already said it on Mark's page but no member is notable enough yet. The group has debuted last year and only a few members have started to promote outside of the group but nothing worth mentioning yet. --Thebestwinter (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: No signs of individual notability outside of the group. Evaders99 (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HealthLine . (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adelbert Road (RTA Bus Rapid Transit stations)[edit]

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

Merge into HealthLine or List of HealthLine stations or delete. Bus stops won't have reliable sources, and indeed the source here doesn't mention the individual bus stops at all. Hirsutism (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the other bus stops on the same bus line:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are not just sign-and-shelter stops, they are bus rapid transit stops with platforms. Thus, we should treat these more like light rail stations, which have presumed notability. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/140th Street (MVTA station). – Train2104 (t • c) 23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rail / bus issue, it's the fact that they're unreferenced. But it's also the fact that they're likely to remain unreferenced because they're BRT bus stops.

Of the bus stop articles you linked, only one has an independent source. --Hirsutism (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into HealthLine or List of HealthLine stations. I don't see the point of deleting the article. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates and the opening date. This information can be kept in one article. I don't know how to make a table, otherwise I would have added it myself. Please do not delete this.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 16:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Rasmussen[edit]

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

Non-notable undergraduate researcher. Only incidental coverage. Plantdrew (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks a lot like an autobiography. In any case, subject is a long way from WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is insufficient independent coverage to meet notability guidelines, WP:BIO. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per my WP:PROD: "Non-notable student scientist. No reliable 3rd party sources to show notability, fails WP:ANYBIO" Tassedethe (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because if that's the threshold for inclusion then I should have a WP article too. Famous _dog (c) 07:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alan Cooper. Not only were a well-argued majority of !votes in favour of merging, but one of the only two 'delete's effectively made an argument for merging rather than deleting as well. Per WP:ATD, there is certainly no consensus to delete the article today. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper (company)[edit]

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

Nothing explains in coverage or in articles why its so significant to be a Wikipedia material. Just a profile and used for Online presence. Light2021 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional and notability not established. Article sources include company's web site & Medium.com. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the founder, Alan Cooper, is notable, there's no sign that the company is. Most of the references are not about the company but about the founder. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alan Cooper. If he is notable and the company isn't, merging is the right way to go per WP:FAILCORP. Regards So Why 09:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alan Cooper. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged (still "delete") -- the target article would not be improved by merging the content, which is mostly routine corporate news, as in:

"In 2002, Cooper began offering training classes to the public including topic as interaction design, service design, visual design, and design leadership!"

Etc. I'm still advocating deletion; if desired, the name can be optionally redirected to the founder. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alan Cooper. He looks to be notable (haven't looked into him). At the very least, a simple redirect there would be better than deletion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Taiwan)[edit]

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

We already have List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and so we don't need separate articles - Sources so far in the article are extremely poor and unfortunately I cannot find any better, Fails NOTTVGUIDE (to a certain extent) and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CFORK and outcomes of other AfD's for other regions. We do not require a separate listing of every broadcast of a TV network per region. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "We do not require a separate listing of every broadcast of a TV network per region.", why not? the last time i looked this is wikipedia, not wiki-usa. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Because practically every TV programme listed is broadcast on every region. If there are any regional differences, they can appear on the main article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

okay, so with a slight rewrite of List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, these others are not needed.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all pro-usa when it comes to the Wikipedia but Ajf773 is correct on every Cartoon Network channel these programmes are all broadcasted everywhere - It doesn't vary with country... so what gets broadcasted in the US and UK is broadcast in for instance Russia, India etc etc so atleast to me it makes more sense to have one big article instead of essentially duplicates which are next to none impossible to source, There's a few articles I've come across which are sourced pretty well which is why I've not nominated them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add but FWIW if the UK article wasn't sourced so well that would be on the chopping block too but each and every entry is sourced so again it's pointless nominating. –Davey2010^Talk 16:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked at a few of these. There's transmission dates but no other info. The shows are basically the same as on other incarnations of the channel. Based on precedent, which indicates it's duplicated content and undue detail with no evidence of separate notability and a lack of reliable in-depth sources discussing the subject matter (routine TV listings would be the only source), delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is lack of reliable sources discussing the subject matter, and I found no evidence that it passes the criteria for a Stand alone list. --Bejnar (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornubia Shopping Mall[edit]

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

Commercial promotion of a projected shopping mall that is part of a 30 year long-term development project. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the promotional content as copyvio from the development's website. A GNews search gets routine real estate news and suspicious-looking local coverage. Not even close on WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability made in the lead. This is a projected future project with only passing mention in stories about Cornubia City. Certainly TOOSOON. Other sources are all non-independent and primarily promotional. Fails GEOLAND and fails GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dartford Young Musician of the Year[edit]

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

Has been speedy deleted a few times already, now PRODded. Bringing it here so it can be speedied G4 next time. Yintan 11:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are either primary or press releases. ValarianB (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage; appears to fail WP:GNG. gongshow talk 23:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die[edit]

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

An obvious pot-boiler of a book, the genre "1001 things for you to worry about" has been a staple for some years. This is not a canonical list of important books, it's just a handy title to stock a bookshop before Christmas. Its lack of canon status is evidenced by the fact that after publication, it was changed so that nearly a third of these "crucial" books were replaced.

Merge to its editor's article at Peter Boxall (academic) (where this article wasn't even linked beforehand). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even the publisher has given up on maintaining their own website. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOOK #1, and the arguments for deletion are irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. It's written by a reasonably high-ranking academic (Peter Boxall (academic)) with an introduction by Peter Ackroyd, which makes it more than just a hacky toilet-book. The fact that a reference book is revised is also not a reason for deletion. Also, if you want to propose a merge, you don't take this to AfD, so along with the lack of valid reasons for deletion, this should be closed on procedural grounds. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Argument that the publisher has given up maintaining their website is a business decision by the publisher and no reason to remove the title. There is evidence that people are still using this list (see Goodreads group which is quite active). And if nothing else this book is a historical document by an academic and has a number of reviews in places such as the Guardian and NY Times and in the future will be a good look at what was being read in the early 21st century. I would like to expand the article (and it is on my project list).Jaldous1 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't realise being "canon" was a requirement—so subsequent editions changed the list, so what? Likewise with shuttering the website of the series, that's purely a business decision and doesn't render a book published 11 years ago as non-notable. Dismissing it as a "pot-boiler" seems a matter of opinion, and not a sound reason for deletion. Written/edited by notable academic and published by large publishing house. --Canley (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, a number of reviews available online including by The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Age, i note that the first afd was deemed keep with a large majority of editors backing keep with an editor citing the above reviews, would like to direct the nominator to WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Piling here, I see, but wanted to thank Coolabahapple for doing what everyone above should have done. Save the screed and show the sources: three dedicated reviews from major publications is enough to write a dedicated article on the subject. Deletion should have always been out of the question since the title makes for a fine redirect to the author's page. It wouldn't be so bad to cover it there summary style anyway. czar 17:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bimal Chandra Goswami ,founder of Assam Rock & Sports Climbing Association and Rugby Association of Assam[edit]

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

I'm not sure this is a notable person. Though I can't search under any Indic language that his name might be listed under, based on Google searches for "Bimal Goswami" and "Bimal Chandra Goswami", I'd say that he fails WP:GNG and that there's no indication of otherwise meeting WP:BIO. There's also little coverage of the organizations the title says he founded. Largoplazo (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Seems to be a WP:MEMORIAL page, and no reliable sources confirming notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sporting figure/organization founder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the article meets notability guidelines. --Elton-Rodrigues 14:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Despite how unhelpful stuff like no-rationales "Delete per WP:GNG" is, I find consensus for deletion; however, there is some support for having this covered in a section of the main article, so merging some of the content there would probably be good. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hill School Blues[edit]

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

I have recently proposed for this page to be deleted. However, the tag was removed, the person who did so citing that the few alumni included olympians and that there were book sources. I would like to point out that the people listed on the page give no inherent meaning to the page itself. That a school's alumni include several olympians is not special, even if that number is thirteen. There are many more more significant prep schools with higher numbers of olympians. For a school to have a sports team page, I believe, it must be a University or a significant secondary school, or one whose sports team have made significant victories in a significant league. As well, this page seems like it was written solely for the purpose of promoting the school. The Hill School deserves no such merit, and I firmly believe that this page should be either deleted or merged with the main article. Peapod21 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the school founded in 1851 has plenty of reliable sources book coverage such as University press books and includes details of its sporting endeavours including at least 13 olympians and the tag says there is more and there is enough reliable source coverage already in the article for this separate article and bundling into the main article would make that page too bulky and difficult to load Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that the main article isn't too "bulky" or "difficult to load." Those are not reasons for splintering. All other concerns of yours, I have addressed in my comment above. I suggest you read it. Peapod21 (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough reliable sources for WP:GNG to be passed for independent notability Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However it gains that notability from its association with the Hill School, not as a sports team. Also, most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE, autobiographical, or referring to prep school sports teams collectively instead of addressing Hill School Blues independently. --2601:196:4901:6F80:EC27:9F30:9B3B:C14B (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough indepth independent coverage of secondary school athletic teams to justify having stand alone articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss merging to The Hill School as an alternative to straight-out deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full of trivia sourced only to school publications or local media. The notable alumni are already listed in List of The Hill School alumni; maybe some details could be added there indicating who was a blue. Some info might be added to the main article but not a straight merge. If you want to create a wiki for your school, nobody is stopping you, but Wikipedia is not your personal web host. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical details are closely linked with those of other institutions (ex. Sweeney who was athletic director at Hill and at Yale, creating modern athletics curriculum). Not sure how many other prep school athletic departments are "much more notable" than Hill, but in that case articles should be created for them too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Does the Hill School sports team gain notability from it being a sports team, or from it being affiliated with the Hill? Because if it is the latter, it has no independent notability, and gains no inherit notability from the school. Also, it doesn't matter whether one person was affiliated with the school who was significant. There is no such thing as notability by association. alphalfalfa^(talk) 19:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how notability by association has anything to do with this article. If the athletic department were at any other school, it would still be notable, due to pioneering ideas, as shown by references from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is that the school's "pioneering," not the teams themselves. The athletic department is not the teams themselves. And also, the athletic department also gains its notability from the school. Neither are notable enough to have their own pages. Also, nowhere in the article states how the department has been innovative. "Oh, our school focuses on its tennis team! Its athletic team should have its own Wikipedia page!" This article is clearly promotional of the school's prestige, and has no business on Wikipedia. It gains no notability from its so called "innovations," no notability from being a school sports team, and no notability from being associated with the Hill School. alphalfalfa^(talk) 04:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: invite author to make the content a section of the school's main page. DrStrauss talk 13:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is kinda of an edge case but I think there is sufficient consensus for deletion. If NA1000 or Jamie want this draftspaced for significant improvement and resubmission via DRV, I think that might be reasonable. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cymbal (app)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable social media App. All coverage are mere press or not in depth by any means. If you go by BBC like news, nothing is written to justify its significance. like some other 1000 of apps available on net. Wikipedia neither a directory nor exist to create such profile. Alexa rank is ridiculous higher 789,588, proves no one really care about this one. Light2021 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG as per coverage in Forbes (also see page 2 of the Forbes article), CNET, Vice, Digital Trends, Tech Times and Notizie. Of note is that the Forbes article is written by a staff writer for Forbes, not a contributor. Also, topic notability is not based upon an application's Alexa rank. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Press coverage as done by other deleted Startups, non notable and Significantly achieve nothing till date from last nominations. Only one para to write. wikipedia is not a corporate or Startup directory neither its a PR host. 10000 apps are there with such news coverage. Please go through Article wikipedia facing these days. Huge number of promotional matter written this way. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed Light2021 (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable application / startup company. I don't see much coverage beyond launch / funding publicity. Has not achieved anything significant just yet, apart from raising $1M from investors. The amount also suggests lack of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only can we see the current sources are in fact company-founded announcements, press releases, notices or consumer reports, but they are republished there no different had it been a company-webhosted one. Next, the sources claimed to be independent coverage in fact appeal to this same basis, given The app adopts a simple interface embracing a "less is more" vibe, allowing users to post just one song, illustrated by colorful album art. Like Instagram, Cymbal involves a home feed, personal profile, followers, likes, comments, hashtags and tags. Your Cymbal is your song of the moment--that throwback you'd jam to in your basement in high school, that song your friend's band just released on SoundCloud. Your home feed, then, becomes an updated playlist curated by your friends, your profile: the soundtrack to your life (All WP:Wikipedia is not a how-to guide contents) or The app adopts a simple interface embracing a "less is more" vibe, allowing users to post just one song, illustrated by colorful album art. Like Instagram, Cymbal involves a home feed, personal profile, followers, likes, comments, hashtags and tags. Your Cymbal is your song of the moment--that throwback you'd jam to in your basement in high school, that song your friend's band just released on SoundCloud. Your home feed, then, becomes an updated playlist curated by your friends, your profile: the soundtrack to your life. The CNET, DigitalTrends, Tech Times and Novice are all from consumer-focused publishers so they cannot be confirmed to be uninvolved in company-supplied information, since that's after all what they label themselves to be: Publishers of possibly appealing products to consumers. But of course, Wikipedia is not any of that and it's separately operated from anything a company publishes about itself, that alone is in policies WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy, something non-negotiably relevant. Even if the information is claimed to be informative or factual (not that it would ever matter since we're better than subjecting ourselves to promotionalism), that alone is not listed as a Wikipedia factor of acceptance, nor should we mistake it as one. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reasons outlined in the first AfD; there are enough sources with reasonable depth to meet WP:GNG (Forbes, DigitalTrends, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SwisterTwister - GretLomborg (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lot of puffery ("Instagram for music") in the article, this doesn't feel like a notable app. It would be nice if there were a specific notability guideline for mobile apps, but there isn't. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Loud House episodes#Season 2 (2016–17). The quality of the sources fail to back-up the lone keep !vote. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"L" is for Love[edit]

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

This article pretty much fails to meet WP:GNG and seems to just be based on one editor's opinion that because it has to do with LGBT, that in itself is sufficient enough reason for it to have its own article. It's not. Plus, this topic is pretty common for most series nowadays, so it's not like this is making history or anything. Additionally, most of the sources are primary sources, coming from the episode itself. There are no secondary sources, such as Deadline, that cover this in an extensive manner. Also notice that no other episodes in the series have their own articles, just this one, even though the LGBT implications aren't only in "L Is for Love." Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly TOOSOON, but I cannot find any RS for this episode other than the Autostraddle already in the article and this other source. But that doesn't seem sufficient to meet GNG. Delete for now, recreate if more sources pop up. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Loud House episodes#Season 2 (2016–17) This is a 'type-what-I-see' recap; the episode's content is definitely groundbreaking, but our standard 'a summary should cover it' in the season article works just as well. Nate • (chatter) 22:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that LGBT+ topics are "pretty common for most series nowadays", the fact that LGBT topics in the show aren't limited to this episode, and the fact that this is the only episode with a page is all irrelevant. There's no rule saying that the episode has to necessarily be a major thing that makes history. Also, there are TONS of examples of other shows that have up episode pages with far less then this. (see this, this, this, just to name a few) Several weaker episode pages have survived for years with no production section at all and one or two reception links. Grapesoda22 (✉) 23:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another reception source has been found and added to the page since this nomination. Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the URL of the source indicates it's a blog, so not RS. But this one could work. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: It is more of an article. The page (like all pages on the site) is not referred to as a blog anywhere besides the URL. The site does not allow users to add their own content, meaning it was formally written by a staff member of the website. Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it doesn't allow editing doesn't mean it's reliable. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the Geeks OUT page is no good, the page now has 3 formal reviews (on top of the well-cited ratings info) and a better sourced production section. Grapesoda22 (✉) 11:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Loud House episodes#Season 2 (2016–17), does not need a separate page, inadequate coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 19 respectable sources covering the topic is hardly "inadequate coverage". Grapesoda22 (✉) 19:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - 14 of those don't count as they are either primary sources—from the episodes themselves—or just reporting the ratings. There are hardly any sources from secondary sources covering this. This isn't a note-worthy article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - 12 of the sources you are referring to do not just come from "the episodes themselves", they are external links from respectable sources giving valid information on the topic. Ratings data is incredibly relevant information on the topic worth covering in depth in this context. Grapesoda22 (✉) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ratings have no relevance as to whether this deserves its own article or not. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said that ratings information alone justifies this article. I meant that well sourced and valid non-universe information by no means has "no relevance". Grapesoda22 (✉) 13:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless, more than 90% of the sources are either primary sources, from the episodes themselves, or ratings information, neither of which is enough to justify this having its own article. There are no secondary sources, such as Deadline or Variety; therefore, it is not notable. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You're just repeating your same comments at this point. There is no rule saying that Deadline or Variety are a requirement for an article. I have provided plenty of good sources for this page. Having sources from those sites aren't necessary at this point. Grapesoda22 (✉) 20:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        'Kay. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To clarify whether to keep as is or to redirect. Straight-up deletion without redirecting or merging seems not a policy-based option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gilligan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable biography of a NLP practitioner that has significant elements of quackery. Sources are largely self-published and/or hosted on subject's own website, with the exception of one citation of his work in a book on Adlerian Psychology and a review of Gilligan's book (but for crying out loud if that's the level of notability required, then I deserve a Wikipedia entry because I've been cited hundreds of times in books and scientific journals). Other sources, such as NLP Academy are advocate organisations for NLP practitioners and not reliable sources. Famous _dog (c) 08:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this a second nomination when the first one doesn't exist and in fact never existed? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Gilligan has never been started and no log entry is displayed to show it was deleted. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The article was nominated alongside a slew of other NLP articles here, and that AFD discussion is linked to on the article's talk page, so technically it is a second nomination. The previous nomination was thrown out mainly because of over-enthusiasm and my optimistic hope that we could remove several totally rubbish articles on NLP in one fell swoop. Famous_dog (c) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the sake of convenience, I will create the page but redirect it to that discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Awesome, thanks! Famous _dog (c) 11:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage of this particular person by this name to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 07:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 07:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep His name is spattered throughout Wikipedia. For instance he is the originator of the term Self-relations psychotherapy, a concept (it would seem) that is sufficiently notable to have its own wikipage. All this sort of stuff should be expunged first....if this cannot be done the implication is that he is notable. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article on self-relations psychotherapy, seems to be as much a vanity project as the article proposed for deletion. It has been tagged since 2015 for not having sufficient citations beyond Gilligan's two books. Famous_dog (c) 12:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you say might be true, although I have for very many years come to see that tagging is an indictment of Wikipedia rather than the article in question. I note you have now added more tags...that article remains...therefore so should this article. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, with respect that's a curious perspective. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that "remain" for the simple reason that nobody besides the article author has read them, cares about the topic or taken the time and effort to tag the content as dubious or non-notable. Tags are useful because they point out specific problems to be solved in order to improve WP. If those tags remain, then that's a good indication that the article's problems are not being solved, or are perhaps not soluble. There are even more problems with self-relations psychotherapy than there are with Stephen Gilligan, so the former is hardly a shining example of a reason to keep the latter. The reason that the former article wasn't tagged (or AfD'd) was that neither I nor anybody else was particularly aware of it. That is hardly a reason to allow either article to "remain" and clutter up WP with poorly sourced fringe tripe. Famous _dog (c) 12:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bosley John Bosley: Are there any sources to indicate this person is notable? Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see the evidence in Google Scholar for mass citation or notable influence. If the individual is notable, especially in this field, then there should be third party references --Snowded ^TALK 05:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir De Thézier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was nominated for a Fail WP:GNG in 2011 but was kept for reasons that I don't consider correct. Apart from the fact that this person is totally unknown in Quebec (no page on the same subject in the French-language Wikipedia), the qaulity of the sources leavec much to be desired. For example, in many cases the Pro-Quebec Independence website Vigile is used as a source, even if anybody can anonymously publish an article in it. Also, other sources simply mention his name in passing. There is also some ambiguity with the name "Justice De Thézier"; it is not clear whether this is one and the same person. --132.204.184.199 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 21:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eliminate the soft verbs (discovered, advocated, embraced, promoted, contributed, explored) from this resume and there is very little left. --Lockley (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying again to generate some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- despite the over-abundance of references, the article fails to establish notability. The subject has not accomplished anything of significance. Being a board member of a minor org and a blogger for Huffington post are not exactly claims to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Karapetyan[edit]

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Only improvement was the addition of a single, non-independent source, currently still the only sourcing for this blp. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage, so they fail WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests that they even approach passing WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep as a well-known Armenian singer. The article passes WP:MUSICBIO, as the singer won several competitions and has been a featured subject of a TV network. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfsDXD-0B_M this is one of his huge LIVE concerts. Harut (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Please note that editor is the article's creator.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - truly deserving artist, I watched the video, what an incredible talent, wow. But the article requires expansion and more sources. Google search shows a good number of them. Eric was also one of the 5 Armenian jury members at the [Eurovision 2016 contest], which is also a good qualifying factor to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Fiddler11 03:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - would either of the above editors care to share any of the sources they've found to show notability? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address Onel5969's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Mendis[edit]

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

This article was subject to a previous speedy delete as it fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. There is nothing contained within the article to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom. Nothing confirming notability here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been open a month; has been relisted three times; and has had no substantial input for at least three and arguably over two weeks. Therefore there seems no realistic likelhood of a consensus emerging to delete this article. What discussion that did take place, however, was evenly-weighted between policy arguments to delete, and sourced-based arguments to keep. No prejudice of course aganst WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mithra Siriwardena[edit]

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

This article was subject to previous speedy delete and this re-creation of the article still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Consider Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the third highest rank in the Metropolitan Police Service of London, UK, i.e. covering a population a bit less than half that of Sri Lanka. Most of the people in that role are notable, so, by extension, it seems likely to me that holders of the third highest rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service would probably be notable. The current article clearly fails WP:GNG as is, but there is material out there, like [9], [10], [11], and passing mentions in [12] and [13]. So, on balance, I'd go with keep. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are five Assistant Commissioners but there were 46 Deputy Inspector Generals (at 31/12/15).--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on Obi2canibe's comment this means that in the history of the Sri Lankan Police force there could be over 1,000 DIGs - I don't see how the whole is automatically notable as a result. The article needs to meet WP:BASIC at the very least, which this doesn't. Dan arndt (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one last time to generate some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to closer) there is no justification that a DIG is inherently notable. Both DilJco ~~and Obi2canibe~~ have not been active since making their respective comments. Dan arndt (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non Functional Upgrade[edit]

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

Essentially the same as One Rank One Pension -- same material, and both essentially advocacy at that. I think the first step is to reduce the number of articles. The context for the advocacy seemed very unclear, but I think it is about a plan to pay pensions to retired army officers at the same rates as police officers, with some added complications, including a claimed inequality for the few hundred army officers at the highest ranks.

I've listed them separately, in case there is some evidence that one of these might warrant a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY and largely trivia; not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Women's National Network Australia[edit]

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

the article seems designed to advance their cause, not for providing information about the association. NOT ADVOCACY holds even when the advocacy is something we would all support personally. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep. The article comfortably passes WP:GNG - it has coverage in multiple independent sources and contributes towards fulfilling a significant gap in our coverage. The only grounds given for deletion is that the nominator claims its "designed to advance their cause", despite the fact there's not a shred of evidence for that conclusion. Nominations like this really frustrate me because they make editor retention so difficult: we get a newish editor who writes a bunch of good content about diverse underrepresented topics that badly need some editorial attention, and someone does a drive-by bid to delete their work by making baseless accusations about them - why would they keep contributing? The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep even Speedy Keep. More than sufficiently sourced from independent reliable sources. Cannot see why it was AfDed at all. Style could be improved, and it needs some copy edit, eg MWNNA versus WMNNA, grammar, etc., but such is not at all sufficient for grounds for deletion. NOM's statement seems to be at complete odds to article content? Aoziwe (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So deletion was preferred over copy editing an article about something that is notable? I don't get it. SL93 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Probably could do with a copyedit, but notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is my first attempt at an article, so by all means fix whatever you think is wrong with it. However it is incorrect to claim it is written to "advance the cause." I have no connection to this organisation. I wrote this article as part of the Women In Red project which is trying to rectify the known statistical gender imbalance on Wikipedia. And in creating this page, I quickly came to understand why there is such an imbalance, because it seems the standards required to get such an article accepted from draft to published, and then also not get deleted, seems higher for this article about a muslim women's organisation (i.e. I have been editing article, and some have pre-existing conflicts of interest, lack of citations, puffery, etc that somehow made it through the gauntlet unchallenged, yet the resistance I've felt to this article has made me wonder why I bother). If you had a problem with the article, why not talk to me about it first? Or respond to the question I posted on the talk page? Or fix what is wrong with it? If you'd taken even a second to read my profile you'd see I've clearly stated I'm new to editing wikipedia, I'm still learning, and I don't pretend to be an expert. My thanks to the people who have voted keep or added comment here; I appreciate you taking the time for this article I created, and that you are welcoming of newcomers like myself. Powertothepeople (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Powertothepeople. Please stick with it. For a first article it was better than quite literally hundreds of thousands of other first and not first articles !! Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't detect any tone of advocacy—other than the lack of the dreaded "Controversies" section—and there is no evidence that the author(s) have any connection with the subject. --Canley (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen some strange attempts at deleting articles from newcomers but this is one of the most peculiar. Without justification.--Ipigott (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, surely. Advocacy? – Well, it doesn't look as if it has been written by anyone opposed to the organisation (against Muslims, or women, or Australia) but that's fine by me. And it seems thoroughly sensible, worthwhile and, for all I know, balanced. It's good we have this article. Thincat (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per my comments when I originally declined it in draft form. It has undertones of advocacy. Most of the keep !votes argue that we shouldn't delete it because it's from a new contributor which seems unjust. I concur with DGG, even though most of us would support what the organisation stands for, if it advocates it positively, it fails WP:NPOV. DrStrauss talk 17:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of Wikipedia policy for an AfC reviewer: even if it did have "undertones of advocacy" (of which no evidence has been provided), we don't actually delete articles for these things, we tag them for cleanup. (And like Canley, I also can't detect any such tones apart from the lack of the dreaded "controversies" section: if anything, this !vote (and the AfC decline) seems to demonstrate some weird hostility about the subject, not about the article.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator just said above that they weren't connected to the organization. So now, not only are you trying to get a notable article deleted, but you are assuming bad faith on the part of the creator. This isn't a case for deletion and this is a case of you not assuming good faith. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a matter of being directly connected with the organization. I discourage all wikipedians from doing advocacy here, even for things they -- and I -- support personally. I have realized that it is quite difficult to avoid this when working on articles for things that one wishes to see publicized, but it remains essential. It is possible to learn how to work even on what you love with an appropriately neutral detachment, but I strongly discourage beginners from attempting it--it is an altogether different mindset than the usual sort of writing. My experience is that it is easier to manage in doing bios than articles on organizations. Myself, I don't even attempt it. I hope it is not easy to guess from my work here what organizations I support; I may leave traces in comments, but not in articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if the creator is trying to advocate for the organization (which I doubt), that still is only a reason for copy editing and not deletion. SL93 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with SL93. As pointed out by others here, the Wikipedia policy regarding deletion says "A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality" and also has a long list of "considerations" to consider before listing something for deletion which I won't copy out the whole list, but here is perhaps the most pertinent one: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." DGG went straight to delete without any such discussion. DrStrauss, regarding your own reason for rejecting the article "not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article" I think your standards are too high for a starter article. I've edited plenty of pages that had real issues of POV, puffery, lack of citations, unclear notability, incomplete unclear sentences and paragraphs, and it didn't occur to me to recommend for deletion except in the one case when it really obviously wasn't notable after a search (a listing for a business that had no online profile beyond its website). The other articles I set about improving. That is why wikipedia has a grading system. Most articles start out low grade, and over time people add to them and improve them and they get better. Collaboration. Powertothepeople (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Among the reasons given when this article was rejected at AfC, as mentioned above, was "does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.", which appeared completely unjustified, suggesting an enthusiasm to reject. PamD 07:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's to some degree the fault of the AfC templates--it's the nearest one to "the content does not seem to represent a NPOV". Of course, one can and should when applicable write a custom decline reason, but people often don't. It's not reasonable to hold an editor responsible for the exact wording of each template they apply from the limited selection. It takes a while to realize the extent to which they need adjustment. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @DGG: So through what channels can non-AfC members urge that the messages be changed so that rejection is not made on inappropriate grounds for lack of an appropriate built-in message? Formality of style has nothing to do with NPOV - and this didn't have as much as a "didn't" of informality. And @DrStrauss: please note DGG's comment about the need to adjust the built-in comments when they are inappropriate. Thanks. PamD 14:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pam, being a member of the group doesn't help. Kudpung, I, and others have been trying to get changes in the templates for several years now. One or another excuse has always been found for not doing them; this is one of the reason why many of us want to rework the submission system entirely from the ground up--and why many want to integrate it with NPP. What we What I personally do when needed , which is most of the time unless it's so utterly obvious that a standard template fits, is to either use a custom reason, or to modify the text after the template has been placed to meet the particular circumstance. Anyone who knows enough to work on AFCs should know enough to give proper explanations. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thanks for the explanation, David. It confirms my feeling that AfC is a ghastly mess allowing power-crazy editors to make life difficult for good faith new editors. I'll stay well away and carry on with my stub-sorting, WiR, occcasional NPP, random article creation, and wikignoming. PamD 07:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article can easily be toned down or rewritten to address the advocacy concern.104.163.153.14 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets WP:GNG, it just needs some copy editing. Don't see where it is pushing its cause. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alex Shih ^Talk 11:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Xu[edit]

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

The user who created this article has been banned for using multiple sockpuppets. The user who created the Chinese version has been banned in both zh.wiki and en.wiki for the same reason. At the very least, this article appears purely WP:PROMOTE with no notability. Timmyshin (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More source discussion, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Notability not established with independent sources. Creator of the article is a blocked user who seems to be a paid promotional writer. -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7: no credible indication of importance. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yorick and Yurick[edit]

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

Reluctantly nominating this for deletion. The primary policy reason is a failure to assert notability. However, it also reads, to me, as an incoherent mix of personal essay, unverifiable speculation, novel synthesis, and conspiracy theory. I've attempted to explained my concerns to the article's creator (here and here), but see no particular signs of understanding or attempts to remedy the issues despite a flurry of other edits to the article, over several days, afterwards. I've also asked for help from WikiProject Soviet Union, WikiProject Russia, and the Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force of WikiProject Film. The only response from the wikiprojects was a concurring opinion and suggestion that the article be deleted.

* The article's creator has indicated that they will be away from editing for several months, so they will be unable to function as an advocate for the article. They are also not fluent in English (I'm assuming their native language is Russian) and the language barrier is an impediment to understanding here. Please keep this in mind when you assess the issue. Xover (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of correct format for this note, but I've notified the above mentioned WikiProjects of the existence of this discussion. --Xover (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Utterly incoherent. Section two begins. "The cause of investigations: Before 1995 Razvedupr and the former Soviet Intelligence subdivisions understood that the attempt to use another person instead of Jesus Christ failed." Wtf? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case "Jesus Christ" was a putative code name used by the "intelligence agencies". Loopy30 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, thank you. Well, I still think G1 might apply. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's so bad that WP:G1 applies. Tagged as such. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any parts that could be deciphered are un-sourced and fantastical. I have started to delete similar ramblings at Kartamyshevska street. Loopy30 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Wing Chun terms[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wing Chun terms

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

Entire article is WP:OR - nothing is in any way verifiable here. This should not be a wikipedia article failing every measure of WP:V. WP:TNT Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout nominator for ~~vexacious litigation~~ renomination without new arguments. This was discussed five months ago with a consensus to keep and move to current title. Deryck C. 11:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Editing my own comment as some people may misunderstand my use of the phrase "vexacious litigation" as a legal threat. Deryck C. 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wing Chun terms for the background - so what does trouting mean?PRehse (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind got it.PRehse (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Glossaries are valid content on Wikipedia per WP:DICDEF, "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field". Adding sources seems easy by reference to works such as Martial Arts of Korea, China & Japan, which verifies the first entry. Our editing policy is to improve such content rather than deleting it. Andrew D. (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wing chun is a well known martial art, would be easy to find RS for this. A list of terms like this is standard for Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Really? Nothing is verifiable? Even if we disregard the notability of Wing Chun, there are plenty of academic sources that would corroborate the terms listed in this glossary. To illustrate the point, here are the first two terms in this glossary in two separate academic sources: Siu Nim Tau (SUNY Press), Chum Kiu (Tuttle Publishing). Alex Shih ^Talk 15:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The external links and sources mentioned by others are sufficient to show enough coverage and that this is not original research. Papaursa (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Peterson (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated or sourced evidence of encyclopedic notability is being a non-winning candidate for the leaderships of two political parties. This is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, however -- if a person doesn't already have a preexisting notability claim, such as actually serving in a legislature as an MP or MLA or being an established television personality, then he has to win the leadership, not just run for it, to get a Wikipedia article for the endeavour. And the only sources present here are his own campaign website, not reliable source coverage for the purposes of getting over WP:GNG. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if he accomplishes something that would change the notability equation -- he's rumoured as a possible (but not yet confirmed) candidate in a future by-election, so actually becoming a real MP may be in his future -- but nothing here already gets him over a notability criterion today. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:BLP. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of articles on Canadian perennial candidates who never win more than 50 votes, and are not nearly as well know as Peterson. He also won more votes in the leadership race than multiple sitting members of parliament. VivaSlava (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please point them out so we can send them to AFD as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we rarely keep articles about "perennial candidates" who perennially lose; there are admittedly occasional exceptions for ones who can be sourced as notable for more than just the fact of being candidates, such as clearing GNG for being charged with hate speech or actually holding the recognized Guinness World Record for the largest number of non-winning candidacies in recorded history. And the number of votes a person got in the process of not winning an election is also irrelevant to notability — if he hasn't held a notable office, then he doesn't pass NPOL no matter how many people did or didn't think he should. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nom has stated the problem well, so I will just say per nom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BLP or WP:NPOL. He received only 0.67% of the vote in the CPC leadership race before being eliminated and he also unsuccessfully ran for leadership of the BC Conservatives, and he is only "mulling" running for the Conservative nomination in Ambrose's old seat. An article can be created if he actually gets the Conservative nomination and wins the by-election. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budak Pailang[edit]

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

Does not meet film notability guidelines. No references and no independent comments on the film. Google search shows that the film exists, but that isn't notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The_Monks#Reunions. The result was clearly to merge; the only question, perhaps, was where to? Although the album Black Monk Time was suggested, there in fact appears no natural placement for this information there. This is due to the fact that the article under consideration here concerns a single released forty years after an album on which none of the songs appear. So, considering that the significance this song has lies more in the period of time that has elapsed between the two events, I felt it it was better placed as an addendum to the main article. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Suzanne[edit]

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

This release does not necessitate a standalone article since it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. There is a small chance it is a searchable term but then again it was not one of the band's better known works. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not sure why I created it in the first place! - Fan exuberance, probably Etron81 (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Black Monk Time – as the article creator admits above, it doesn't warrant its own article and fails WP:NMUSIC. Richard3120 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black Monk Time. Should at least be mentioned in the target article. Regards So Why 07:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta, Indianapolis, Indiana[edit]

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

Neighborhoods are generally not notable unless there it sufficient independent coverage in RS to meet GNG. Otherwise, this neighborhood should be mentioned in Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. No objection to Merge/Redirect. MB 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. --Lockley (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This historic former village meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally-recognized populated place, as per this reliable source, as well as other sources that attest to it being a legally-recognized place: [14], [15]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- NA1000, I don't see how those sources prove that this is "legally recognized"--I think you are reaching too far, and you're probably safe enough already when arguing GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpret "formerly populated" places to be things that are no longer populated, like "ghost towns". This place is still populated and it is now a neighborhood of a larger place. If it had sufficient notability for a stand-alone article, it certainly should have one. But otherwise, a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND. And it turns out that there is already a separate article on the New Augusta Historic District, so in this case any content in this article not already in the NRHP article, if any, should be merged there. MB 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Source #2 in my !vote above was published in 1866 by the Adjunct General of the State of Indiana, and source #3 is The National Gazetteer of the United States of America, which was published in 1988 by the United States Government Publishing Office. The first source is published by the National Park Service, which is an agency of United States Department of the Interior, and describes the locale (in part) as

... a small village called Augusta developed at the corner of present-day 71st and Michigan Road. With plenty of travelers using Michigan Road, the small village grew to have general stores, a post office, and other essentials."

These come across as valid, legally-authoritative sources to me. For example, the United States Government Publishing Office "prints and binds documents produced by and for the federal government" (italic emphasis mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But this doesn't address my comment at all. It may have been a village at one time, but now it is part of Indianapolis. There are dozens or maybe hundreds of former villages that are now part of NYC and they don't all have individual articles. See Blissville, Queens as an example. MB 02:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB: You state in your comment above that "a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND". However, this phrasing is under point #2 of WP:GEOLAND for Populated places without legal recognition (italic emphasis mine). Per my !vote and commentary above, I view this former village and neighborhood as falling under point #1, for Populated, legally recognized places (italic emphasis mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This IS a populated place without legal recognition, in my view. It may have been legally recognized as a village before it was swallowed up by Indianapolis, but it then lost that status. It is now just a neighborhood of the city, which is not legally recognized. This section of GEOLAND is often interpreted differently by different editors. MB 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A possible merge target would be New Augusta Historic District. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GEOLAND. DrStrauss talk 21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Northamerica1000 above. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss whether to keep as is or merge somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I originally nominated this, I was unaware of New Augusta Historic District. Since this topic is clearly notable due to its historic designation and is covered in that article, we don't need two articles on the same place. ~~The article should be merged into New Augusta Historic District.~~ MB 15:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be the same place. The New Augusta Historic District article states that the New Augusta Historic District "...is located east of Augusta", although this is presently unsourced in the article. If the New Augusta Historic District is located east of Augusta, Augusta is not the New Augusta Historic District. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The historic district is "New Augusta" and is located 1.5 miles east of "Old Augusta" (the topic of this article). They are different places. So I am back to "Old Augusta", which was apparently mostly abandoned as the people/businesses there followed the railroad east in 1852, being merged into either Indianapolis or Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. MB 03:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The only reference on this page (other than a link to Google Maps) is to [16] which describes the New Augusta Historic District. I support a merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the evidence given in this AfD, this is a formally recognized albeit former place and there is sufficient information (at least the location and one fact) to have a separate article. Unscintillating (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from a third relist, consensus is not clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is better than a merge per NorthAmerican. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Northamerica. Passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Jones[edit]

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

no significant coverage in reliable sources. very brief flirtation with the very edge of fame, not enough to justify a page here/pass GNG Rayman60 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find RSes to show notability, otherwise it fails BIO overall. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete won a beauty pageant at a non-notable level, and nothing else is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boadi[edit]

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

Complete self promotions, no media coverage for Encyclopedic standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 19:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-promotional article, supposed notability is entirely WP:INHERITED from other musicians and sports stars. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRXQUINNX[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, fluff with absolutely no actual coverage and bordering on hoax claims of working with "notable" artists. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: -- concur with @Chrissymad that subject is "Non-notable artist" at this time. Quis separabit? 02:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jebanasam[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The article is heavily based of one of its sources (http://secretthirteen.org/paul-jebanasam-subtext-mix/), with a few more details. Also investigating the edit log, it appears that the article was first created by a user called "Subtext Recordings", the record label Jebanasam supposedly signs for.

I originally PRODded the article back in March, but withdrawn it due to sources being added. However, going back again and digging a little bit deeper, I'm now not sure these sources are separated enough to show proper notability.

Furthermore, at the time of nomination, at least four of the sources are illegitimate - one is currently broken, two are internal Wikipedia redirects to another record label, and one is his Bandcamp page. The others appear to be promotional pieces for an album of his, thus making them rather contentious sources and potentially not neutral enough to be trustworthy. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 22 June 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, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the hopes that someone, anyone, will !vote on this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article demonstrates notability. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Regime (Canadian band)[edit]

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

I have been able to find surprisingly little about this band in reliable independent sources considering the number of releases. I did find a news article confirming that they opened for Platinum Blonde at least once. The Pop Encyclopedia article appears to have been written mainly from information provided by the band members. Perhaps another editor will find something I missed. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in its current state the article doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND due to its lack of WP:RS. DrStrauss talk 20:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, surprisingly. This is definitely inadequate as written, but I actually was able to find some better sources in a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstream" search — not a ton, I'll admit, but enough — as well as evidence that they charted in RPM. And even more weirdly, while I'd have to investigate more thoroughly before making a final determination one way or the other, there's at least the possibility that lead singer Kevin Connelly may also separately clear GNG as an individual since I found a couple of sources about his later solo career in the process — which, if borne out, would also put them past the criterion of having had two independently notable members (even though Les Stroud is technically notable for television work rather than anything related to music per se, he's still notable.) Also, turns out that the first album's producer got a Producer of the Year nomination from the Juno Awards for it, too. I don't have time to tackle this right away, but I'll take a stab at improving it this evening. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated with improved content and sourcing. And I'm writing a song of praise to ProQuest too, as that database now gives me quite a large spectrum of newspapers that it never had at all before this week, including two from which I've pulled citations here. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bearcat—Anne Delong (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surval Montreux[edit]

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

I am suggesting this article is removed as it contains some inaccuracies about the school and as such cannot be deemed helpful to users who are looking for relevant and objective information about Surval. Wikilady2345 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have fixed this AfD, which was broken, by inserting the reason supplied by User:Wikilady2345 at Talk:Surval Montreux. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason provided to delete. The way to deal with inaccuracies is to edit with citations from WP:RELIABLE sources, not delete. There is a guideline WP:DUE and supplement WP:Inaccuracy explaining how to respond to inaccurate information. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Added subsequently. Agree with the comments of other editors. Lourdes 20:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)) Comment Which inaccuracies would you be referring to Wikilady2345? If you're referring to the silly Daily Mail reference provided in the article, I have removed it right now. Generally, inaccuracy is not reason enough to delete. Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for guidance on what reasons may be appropriate to request for deletion. Thanks. Lourdes 01:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inaccuracies are there to be fixed, rather than articles being deleted as a result thereof. The school itself would appear to have sufficient coverage to be notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in fact keepable by WP:SK1 considering any mistakes can certainly be fixed and that's not affecting the notability aspect at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - No valid reason was given for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inaccuracies is poor reasoning. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 14:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RuPawl[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a dog, whose only discernible claim of notability is having a bit of a social media following because her owner posts pictures of her dressed up as RuPaul's Drag Race personalities. Of the sources present here, half of them are primary sources (the dog's own website, sources affiliated directly with RPDR) and two more are to a blog -- leaving just two reliable sources (Attitude and Get Leashed), both of which are really just photo galleries wrapped by mere blurbs worth of actual text content about the dog. Basically, none of this is a substantive reason for an encyclopedia article to exist, or a viable pass of WP:GNG -- if the dog were a human we'd be deleting this as a WP:BLP1E, so I don't see a compelling reason to treat it differently just because she's a dog. (And no, this is not a cats vs. dogs thing. I love dogs.) Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and this also applies to dogs. This is a bunch of silly stories over 2 weeks or so. If the dog gets a long-lasting career and continuing media coverage, reinstate the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:TOOSOON at best. Definitely does not meet WP:SUSTAINED - GretLomborg (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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