Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 October	2 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Seems like a convincing NPROF #3 case here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Zeeman[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, probably speedy keep - Fellow AAAS meets the requirements of WP:PROF. nothing more needs to be shown. Viable stub Of course a better article must be written, bu tthat is our usual improvement. It was however a little outrageous to write such a minimal stub--it's always opssible with a subject like this to do better than that, and doing only the bare minimum will only confuse the eds. who don't understand WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The AAAS Fellow is a clear pass of WP:PROF but sourcing seems very sparse. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The AAAS grants the title of "Fellow of the AAAS" to well-respected scientists within the organization. So Maurice Zeeman is a well-respected scientist and deserves a place in Wikipedia. His most cited paper was cited by 749 others, and he writes the final chapter of this book on environmental toxicology, summing up the field of ecological risk assessment. I think he meets WP:PROF. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is his most cited paper about? Its not mentioned. Rathfelder (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a survey paper rather than a research contribution, on chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system, in which he is 12th out of 13 authors. I don't think it should be mentioned unless we can source some significant contribution of Zeeman to the work despite his low position in the author list. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being number 12 on a paper is just not the stuff of academic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the SNG for Academics, point 3. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article as it stands gives any indication to the reader as to why he is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Of course the article could be expanded, as he must have done something important to become an elected fellow, but that's not in the scope of AfD. Galobtter (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The more detailed source analysis by delete !voters carries the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Ovadia[edit]

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

Article has been notability-tagged since 2011 and is all OR. Sources are a personal letter and a broken link. Quick search only turns-up some blogs and other pages on a different person having the same name. Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a poor article, but Jacques Ovadia was certainly a notable person. There are scores (at least) of good-quality references to be found on Google, and many book references. Significantly, he is included in Leaving the 20th Century, the first major collection of Situationist texts. The article should be improved (it reads like a poor translation), but not deleted. RolandR (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
edit instead of deletion : creator of article should add more reliable sources also i think its notable for WikipediaLifeisstudyinghard (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — Lifeisstudyinghard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User:Lifeisstudyinghard has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I make no claim to understanding Situationist International, nevertheless leftist intellectual movements and their admirers in later generations do publish endlessly about themselves. I therefore expected that a couple of quick searched in gBooks, JSTOR and similar would turn him up. Not so. Leaving the 20th Century: The Incomplete Work of the Situationist International merely lists him name on a list of "members of Situationist International" tha tstarts on p. 132 and by the bottom of the page is still only up to members whose names start with the letter "C" . This is a minor book, 1998, non-bluelinked author, Rebel Press. A handful of Ovadia's old article some up. Then, this mention "Signal pour commencer une culture révolutionnaire en Israël par Jacques Ovadia " in a more significant looking book Textes et documents situationnistes: 1957-1960, By Gérard Berreby, Editions Allia, 2004, p. 192. Plus a citation of his thoughts on the necessity of agents provocateurs to revolution in L'amère victoire du situationnisme: pour une histoire critique de l'Internationale Situationniste : 1957-1972, By Gianfranco Marelli, p. 136, Editions Sulliver, 1998. That's the best I can do. It doesn't look like enough to support WP:BASIC. No prejudice against keeping if someone can find sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Leaving The Twentieth Century" edited by Chris Gray (situationist) had sufficiently broad influence to possibly merit an article in its own right rather than being "minor". Anyway, on to Ovadia. The table in Gray's 1974 book was derived from Raspaud & Voyer's 1972 Champ Libre reference book. Ovadia barely figures in their tables of SI members or chronology, gone sometime in 1961, nor in Debord's Correspondance for 1961. The authorship of a single article (IS no.4 p22-23) with no apparent subsequent effect other than the anthologisation and quotation mentioned above seem too flimsy as evidence for biographical notability. Nor does association with Céline or acquiring some art works provide WP:ANYBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Team pages can be redirected as seen fit, if a discussion is warranted on redirecting team pages it can be started on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 18:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North American Premier Basketball[edit]

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

No in-depth independent coverage. Does not satisfy general notability guidelines or sports notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Mesquite NAPB team - The team is only notable if the league is notable, and neither of them has any in-depth independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS doesn't address sports leagues, so I'm not sure what criteria you're claiming it doesn't meet.

I see significant coverage here:

-- Powers

I agree with Powers, the league is in its early stages with the season beginning in January. Many of the teams ie. Albany Patroons, Yakima Sun Kings competed in the CBA a notable league, played in major sports markets etc. The league's president Dave Magley was the commissioner of the NBL Canada and the coaches are former NBA players. Syracusestorm (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC) ^T 20:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the league, but Delete Mesquite NAPB team per WP:CRYSTAL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Power~enwiki. Deb (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Power-enwiki as well. Keep the league, but seems reasonable to wait until the team starts to generate significant press before creating. It's not a top-level team so there is no guarantee it will get significant coverage at all. Rikster2 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: editors should probably also have a look at other new pages involved with this league: Kansas City NAPB team, Rising Star Sports Ranch (a resort where the Mesquite team plan to play in their on-site recreation facilities with only local coverage), Kentucky Thoroughbreds (another new NAPB team), and Seattle Knights (basketball) (another new NAPB team). Yosemiter (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected the Kansas City one to the league as premature. The named teams are/probably will be notable, or if not should be redirected to the league page instead of being deleted, and the Rising Star Sports Ranch looks like it just squeaks past GNG, but squeak past it does. As for the actual subjects of the AfD... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Power~enwiki. Keep the league, delete or redirect the unnamed-as-of-yet team. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The forthcoming league meets GNG. See THIS from the Rochester Democrat and Herald providing coverage about one team in the league. Carrite (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the league, delete the teams (although could be recreated later if this league actually goes somewhere. LionMans Account (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone has a target to selectively merge the content of the page to I would be happy to userfy it to them J04n(talk page) 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Utilities[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V, all sources are press releases. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page describes a software product as it is represented by the company that manufactures it. The page is not supposed to claim that the information provided by the company is necessarily accurate. It can only verify that the company says what it says about the program. There was no scientific research conducted with the purpose to verify that the features that the developer company claims Remote Utilities has really exist. ConradSallian (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds to me that it might arguably fail WP:V as well as WP:N.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the Gnews search link above does reveal some independent reviews, particularly from PC World. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are both press-releases and independent reviews. If press-releases are the problem and independent reviews aren't, then the references to press-releases should be removed. Although, strictly speaking, the fact that certain information (such as feature descriptions) comes from the manufacturer does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer is an "unreliable source". Similarly, the fact that information comes from an independent review does not necessarily mean that that independent source is reliable. ConradSallian (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, I do not see quite enough coverage in independent WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete just another run of the mill program. This one has been around longer than some, but it's still neither novel or ground-breaking. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but could you provide us with your research on the subject? To make a bold statement about a program being "run-of-the-mill" one should probably be a renowned expert of the software industry in general and specifically remote desktop software. In other words, one must be a reliable source ;) ConradSallian (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI much?: Special:Contributions/ConradSallian

cf. Sea lioning Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I think there would be enough WP:RS to justify a redirect and selective merge to an entry in an applicable list, if possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I am not able to see any evidence of notability. For example, LogMeIn (another remove access client/service) is fairly popular and is discussed widely in various news articles. The same cannot be said for remote utilities. I do acknowledge that it originally started out as "Remote Office Manager" and it is true that in those days, we didn't have so many online websites. However, if I compare it with coverage of similar software from the early 2000s, I still see a distinct lack of coverage. The archives of PC World and other magazines do not seem to have much either. Perhaps the userbase using the software is not as massive which is responsible for the lack of coverage. My apologies to the creator, but I have to go with a delete.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Kumar[edit]

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

Fails tennis nsports and tennis project guidelines. No main draws played in the WTA, No Fed Cup, no jr top 3 ranking, no minor league participation... nothing. She is not notable for anything tennis related. Is she notable for martial arts? You'd have to ask that project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Not notable enough yet, although she might be in the future. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with the nom regarding the tennis issue. However noting the Martial arts element, I will point out the Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games is a 'big deal' in Asia, where martial arts are a 'big deal', and she is a 'big deal' in Fiji (as a national level sportsperson). Fiji itself is a bit small, I am tempted to say the coverage is local, but that would discriminating against a small country, so I won't. I am saying she meets the notability requirements. Dysklyver 14:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I mentioned the martial art aspect, since it's not my expertise. However, if that's the case, the first line should not say "Vienna Kumar is a Fijian tennis player", it should say "Vienna Kumar is a Fijian martial arts competitor." Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't meet NTENNIS, but I think GNG is there. The Commonwealth and Asian games inclusions are good enough, albeit not perfect since they're at the youth level. South Nashua (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She passes GNG.--Ipigott (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. A clear redirect preferred under WP:OUTCOMES exists, so I am going ahead and closing this as a redirect per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathie Allen[edit]

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

WP:NPOL; not independently notable outside of 2017 special election and news coverage thereof Mélencron (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate for office with no prior notability. AusLondonder (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. For election candidates with no independent notability, it is common practice to redirect the article to the election article, to preserve the search term. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M Khurshid Ali[edit]

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

I didn't found anything significant (in Bengali or English). No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are millions of fredom fighters who sacrifices there life's for independence of Bangladesh but we can't create articles for everyone only because he/she sacrifices his/her life. On Bengali Wikipedia, we only accept articles if they have been awarded by Bangladesh Government for their heroic actions at the Liberation War of Bangladesh. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fails WP:GNG and is one event person. Only one mention in single source. Plus above above comment explained it even more. — Ammarpad (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG and WP:Memorial, applies. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear GNG fail, obviously doesn't pass SOLDIER, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a further point. Looks like someone at the cadet college created articles for all the various busts in the main hall (the first principal was(is?) also here at AfD).Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; multiple reliable sources are needed for a subject to be suitable for the encyclopedia, and it is preferable that the sources be independent of each other and of the subject. This subject does not have that, making an encyclopedic article impossible without original research or being tied to a point of view overly connected to the subject. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is entirely based on a directory listing. Not everyone who fought to liberaty Bangladesh from Pakistani colonialist rule is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raadreeb[edit]

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

Other than affiliated sources I can find little independent, reliable coverage to suggest this passes WP:GNG. Currently it's just a WP:YELLOWPAGES entry. DrStrauss talk 17:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of indepth sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Groves[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non=notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced promotional article. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heavily promotional with almost no legitimate sourcing Burley22 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iyad Anwar Wali[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. Non-notable businessman. Störm (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn businessperson; only known for one event, but the event itself does not appear to be significant. WP:MEMORIAL also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails the "not news" test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants this to be userified, ping me - this should be a very intriguing and noteworthy subject, one of the 'forgotten parts' of World War II, yet...well, here we are, with an article that, as it is, has come to this. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trondheims-Pressen[edit]

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

The article is unsourced and there is a lack of significant coverage for the subject. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in-depth coverage found. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Faceless People of Monroe[edit]

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

Appears to be a attempt to create an urban legend with little evidence that is has caught on.©Geni (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appear to be an attempt at Creepypasta. Artw (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No idea if this is connected to Creepypasta, but there are very few sources - 2005 book, 2010 news article. Not enough to assert WP:GNG, I think, where it is likely something not based on any anthropological/sociological studies or even a reasonably popular meme, but something possibly invented by some writer a decade ago or so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much doubt the book cite would pan out. The "news" site has forum links at the bottom - as references? Artw (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Preaky (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Beruang (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. The hatnotes on the pages listed on the disambiguation page are sufficient, which makes the disambiguation page unnecessary —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:2DABS. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT6. Feel free to renominate after it is removed from the main page. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Republic (2017)[edit]

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

This is a content fork of Declaration of Independence of Catalonia - that is, it needlessly duplicates content better covered there and in related articles such as Catalan independence referendum, 2017, 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis and Catalonia. There's no need to repeat the same, relatively limited facts concerning the recent political shenanigans in Catalonia in multiple (possibly contradictory) articles.

Moreover, recent events indicate that this self-declared state has no substance to it: it does not effectively control its claimed territory, and it does not seem to have a functioning government or other institutions. Basically, all that can be said about it is the fact that independence was declared, Spain set various legal and constitutional procedures in motion, and the leading separatists fled abroad. These events can all be better covered, with appropriate context, in the other articles mentioned at the outset. Sandstein 16:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT #6 ("The article is currently linked from the Main Page.") AusLondonder (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with main page linking can be resolved by creating a redirect to Declaration of Independence of Catalonia after deletion. It's basically the same content anyway. Sandstein 16:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this basically exposes the same reasons for deletion under which the previous deletion request was rejected (just noting that It doesn't matter if it exists; it matters if it has media coverage, which it does). Also, that someone has been intent on trying to copy-paste info from this article to Declaration of Independence of Catalonia doesn't turn this one into a fork of that one. That article covers the specific resolution and should be limited to it (whoever is turning it into a copy-paste of info of Catalan Republic (2017) is doing the wrong thing). If anything, it's that article which should be merged into this one if people think there should not be two articles covering these topics, as the scope of Catalan Republic (2017) is larger than just the independence declaration. But copy-pasting content from here over there to argue that this one should be removed because this info has been put there is non-sense. Impru20 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with merge of content to the declaration). For 3 days a Republic did not exist. So the name in and of itself is a blatant case of wp:recentism, wp:toosoon and wp:crystal ball. This is the stupid thing with rapid and immediate creation of articles that are in reality little more than stubs, or should be subsections of more encompassing articles. Koncorde (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is sufficiently different from Declaration of Independence of Catalonia, and covered a broader topic as well as the proposed country's attempts at international recognition. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 01:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wadie Jwaideh[edit]

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

Not much coverage found. Can't be notable for being a professor. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

while thes appears to be a good faith Nomination by a Nom unfamiliar with middle eastern studies, it would be a good idea for editors to click through to the second and third pages of a gBooks search in the searchbar above; you don't have to click through to the actual books, just scan the snippets to a very clear idea of how influential Jwaideh's work has been.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to The Kurdish National Movement (book). It seems he is mostly relevant for this book, and not much else. The book itself is highly notable, and doesn't have an entry.Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author of 2 widely cited and reviewed scholarly books, plus a festschrift. oh, and, WP:HEY, I added s few scholarly book reviews to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor. If you are tempted for any reason to close as delete - which seems highly improbable, if you were willing to give me a courtesy ping instead and a few days I would make time to come back and do an expand, source. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR and per recent article improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Perhaps only a small output, but apparently a very significant one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Nayaka[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. While I have declined an A7 nom on the basis of their claimed awards, I find them to be minor and non-notable, thus failing to establish WP:N. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be notable. Preaky (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shafeeq Gigyani (activist)[edit]

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

merely namechecking in the RS doesn't makes one notable enough to warrant a WP entry. none of the source discuss the subject in detail except noting him as an activist. some cited sources are not RS. Saqib (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to TT Games Publishing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Interactive[edit]

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

looks like a disabiguation page with one link -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete formerly held an article on "Giant Interactive Group Inc.", a Chinese video game company. The article presented almost exclusively unreliable or primary sources, and showed that the author did not want to accept that notability is not inherited from your products, reverting me commentless. Was turned into a disambiguation page as a compromise, but the best solution is to just have it deleted altogether. Lordtobi (✉) 14:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to TT Games Publishing per Lordtobi, until such time as a page can be presented with reliable sources on the Chinese company. (In which case defer to WP:TWODABS.) If the user who wrote the article would like to work on a draft for later submission as an article, I have no opposition to such. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side-comment, as it was not mentioned: "Giant Interactive" can be the short form of TT Games Publishing's former name "Giant Interactive Entertainment Limited", and it is the only other target a page titled "Giant Interactive" could possibly have. In addition to Giant Interactive, also the redirects about the Chinese company (Giant Interactive Group and Giant Interactive Group Inc.; the prior was created by me for functionality reasons) should be deleted alongside. Lordtobi (✉) 15:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator in the form of a Keep !vote, with no outstanding !votes to delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Odisha cricketers[edit]

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

For the reasons described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players, ~~this article should be deleted~~. A single entry seems deficient in a sport that requires no less than eleven to play a game. Rhadow (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Odisha cricketers has 57 entries, so why couldn't this be expanded? postdlf (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Hello postdlf -- There are already thirty-eight players and coaches on Odisha cricket team. Why duplicate the list at List of Odisha cricketers? Rhadow (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a different argument than you've presented for deletion. Sounds like this list should then be redirected to the proper section of that article. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I copied the one entry in the list in preparation for a redirect, instead of the delete originally proposed here. Rhadow (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note I am simply saying that deletion is not an option, I have no opinion on whether this should be kept as a WP:SPLIT from the parent. If it shouldn't, then it should be redirected. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to be comprehensive. Harrias ^talk 07:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The list has now been radically expanded. The main article Odisha cricket team only shows the current squad and a small selection of the more notable players. This article shows (is meant to) all players past and present. NOM's rational for deletion no longer exists. Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- After Eno Lirpa's extensive editing (and determination that the original entry was not "more notable") the list seems usable. It still contains duplicates and has some sorting problems, but time will take care of that, methinks. Original nominator Rhadow (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eno Lirpa: Would you consider expanding your other stubby lists such as these? Haryana, Goa, Vidarbha, J&K, Railways. Some of these lists do not cover even 1 percent of all players who played for the respective teams. In case you don't wish to work on these lists, nuking them and letting somebody else start over would be a viable option. Dee 03 17:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Edition Design Publishing[edit]

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

Not sure why speedy was removed, but publishing company that fails WP:GNG. Only sources are their books, highlighting that they are the publisher and passing mentions with no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even approaching notability guidelines for companies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything counting to GNG. Ping me if this changes. Carrite (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Celebration Chorus[edit]

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

Small, local organization with no notable accomplishments, let alone any reliable and verifiable sources to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local musical group, pretty much only sourced to group created websites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Shanmuganathan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, the only references provided are social networking sites and a personal website. The article’s original creator and one of the main contributors, Ramesh.shanmuganathan has a WP:COI, as the article is about him. The article was previously deleted (via Speedy) in 2009 but was re-created by a different user. Ramesh.shanmuganathan has removed a previous PROD notice without making any improvements and continues to edit this article. Dan arndt (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 20:15, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy does not even have "chief" in his executive title. I think it is safe to determine he is not notable. Although I am still waiting for my employer to create the position of Chief Sanitation Officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Preaky (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

V E Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label, fails WP:NCORP, could not find obvious sources, also all the listed artists are redlinks. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No indication label has made any cultural or musical impact. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; in addition their website (the only ref) appears to no longer exist, and the archive.org version has no content other than a Flash thing that I can't get to load. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This one is close, but there's just enough to tip it over to the 'keep' side of the Mendoza line. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loren C. Ball[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Minor Planet Center is not an "independent, reliable source" in your mind? How bizarre. Should this sad deletion occur, the article should instead be preserved by being moved to User:Urhixidur/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers. Urhixidur (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Minor Planet Center merely lists his name (assuming I'm looking at the same page you are). It has no biographical information. That's the problem, other than his self-written article (re-published from a local paper by a Nashville astronomy club), nothing can be found out about him. Unless you know of sources that give his biographical details, I don't see how the article holds up as anything but a stub. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find anything which could be defined as significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Therefore, fails to meet WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I think anybio or the GNG are the wrong criteria. Certainly I think anyone who has discovered > 100 asteroids deserves a stub. His biographical data is not what makes him notable. I mean, who cares? The notability is in the achievement. This may be a case of not having an appropriate guideline for astronomers. If there is such, please ping me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ball, Loren C. “'The Swimmer': A Midsummer's Nightmare.” Studies in Short Fiction 24, no. 4 (1987): 433–436 (very likely by the same person)

Atlanta, vol. 44, n° 3 (July 2004), page 178 (brief mention)

Keep as noteworthy; very few amateurs have discovered so many asteroids. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:BASIC. Their achievements may be unusual, but notability is not inherited from the asteroids, none of the asteroids are notable anyway (with one possible exception that currently has an article), and Ball's article is merely a directory of asteroids discovered by this person. That's a lot of WP: links, but my point is that doesn't seem to be any non-trivial coverage of this person, just entries in lists of asteroids. Therefore they should not have an article. Modest Genius ^talk 17:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep mostly based on the number of discoveries. I've added another reference to a newspaper interview with him, but there doesn't seem to be that many of these. There is, however, enough to write a (short) article about him. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now two independent substantial references writing about him/her, so WP:GNG is met. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are you counting Atlanta, vol. 44, n° 3 (July 2004), page 178 as a "substantial reference"? It's a passing mention in one sentence. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)~~ I just noticed an additional reference added to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without any doubt. The sheer number of discoveries as well as cited articles, "An Amateur Story", "Stars falling over Alabama", in addition to subject's descriptive write-up [under "External links"] within the website of Barnard-Seyfert Astronomical Society are more than sufficient reasons for his notability and retention in Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit M.M. John[edit]

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

Deprodded unreferenced biography, with little to no claims of WP:N Sadads (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would be a little disappointed if we had to delete this, but fear we will have to as I see little in it to inducate WP-notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Peterkingiron He was a Bishop in here.Think it can be expanded.It states He was the President of the India-Burma-Ceylon Bible Society.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be the same person identified as a bishop above. This one was a member of the Kerala Brethren, but the bishop was an Anglican. Those denominations sit at opposite ends of the protestant spectrum. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree was checking it does not appear to be the same person .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Cannot find any references to claim the Notability. JackTracker (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all guidelines, at least as written. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xerxes Byram Avari[edit]

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

Can't be notable being participant in Asian games. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. No coverage in WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Non notable as either a businessperson or an athlete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Arif Balgamwala[edit]

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

Not much in WP:RS or Google Books. Can't be solely notable based on 4th in level award e.g. Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. We can't write much without WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable stamp collector.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haider Rashid[edit]

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

Not much to his credit. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Adhinathan[edit]

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

Non-notable art director. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG, only a few passing mentions and crew listings. GermanJoe (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last vote was today, relist for further consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existing references are all trivial, and I wouldn't expect him to meet WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO based on the resume in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think an extra relist will help here. ansh 666 20:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benque fiesta[edit]

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

References are currently blogs or non-notable sources. WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Sources do not appear reliable. Happy to reconsider if better sources can be found. A Train^talk 20:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 01 (Pentagon EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Also fails WP:GNG, little significant coverage (Gsearch). DrStrauss talk 11:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ranked number eight on South Korea's national Gaon Album Chart, passes WP:NALBUM. I've added some information to the article, and will added more when I have the time. ℯ xplicit 01:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Explicit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatwanika Sindhu Lipi[edit]

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

A quick search for the subject of the article yielded no results except for a discussion on a forum that mentioned Indian nationalist conspiracy theories which mentioned the script as a "theory, mentions of the article in categories etc., and the article itself. There is insufficient evidence to assert that the subject of the article really exists. As such, it fails WP:GNG Hazarasp (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time to elimanate all articles lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or ~~merge into Sindhi language#Writing system~~ redirect to Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka. A google books search for the variant spelling of hatvanika returns results that are few in number but good in quality, so the thing definitely exists. I haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion whether enough sources can be found for a standalone article, or whether this should only appear within another article. If anyone wants to look into this more, there are several further spelling variants listed in this book, so plugging these into a search engine might yield further results. – Uanfala 21:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 21:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's nothing to merge from this un-referenced (and confusing) stub, and as a misspelling this isn't a plausible search term. Thanks to Uanfala for finding what this is though; it's discussed at Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes, I'd overlooked the bad state of the stub. So unless someone rewrites it (I'm still on the fence with regard to notability), it should be redirected to Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka (thanks for finding that out!). The redirect should then be tagged as {{R unprintworthy}}: not because of any misspelling (I've just created Hatwanika as an {{R from alternative romanisation}}), but because of Sindhu Lipi: a disambiguator that is unnecessary, overly long and miscapitalised. – Uanfala 09:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ted E. Brewerton[edit]

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

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Available sources are either primary or are only providing short routine quotes from the subject and passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject of the article, Ted E. Brewerton, was a general authority seventy for quite a few years. As a high-ranking official in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he held a wide variety of positions within the Church and is notable for that reason. Some may try to say that, because the only sources cited in the article are LDS publications that there are notability issues, but this is no different than information about a member of a Catholic diocese coming primarily from resources related to Catholicism. For those and other reasons, I strongly oppose the motion to delete this article. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ WP:HEY I searched and added some sources to the page, but I'm just not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV. User:Jgstokes, if you or anyone else can find some INDEPTH, stuff from which to source a BIO, even from Deseret, feel free to ping me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep, see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a decent article, with sources, about a fairly significant person in the mormon hierarchy, is/was a member of the "first 70", is linked from Seventy (LDS Church) which lists many others. I don't think it is helpful to go picking through the "70"-type mormon listings in order to accomplish marginal paring down. I noticed this AFD because I edited the article a while back, perhaps after noticing a CFD about a category of stake presidents that covered the item. Sure it could be a more exciting article but it is solid enough, and there's nothing controversial / no reason to achieve marginal paring. --do ncr am 23:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to E.M.Gregory: Regarding the significant coverage issue, Brewerton was one who was listed among the general authorities for years until he was granted emeritus status around his birthday. The sources verifying his status as a high-level leader in the LDS church can easily be found here and here. In these simple initial searches, I found enough information on Brewerton to rationalize keeping the article, both sources highlighting his importance as a leader in the LDS Church, and sources which highlight his achievements outside of that full-time service. I currently do not have time to go into specifics in terms of every source that prove the article in question should be allowed to stay, but I will say that there have been quite a few AfD nominations for LDS Church leaders in the last little while, and there ought to be some way to prove conclusively that the individual articles about such leaders are worthy of keeping. If that can be done, then there will not be so many individual nominations. But the fact is that Brewerton was an active part of the LDS leadership during pivotal periods, and his work as a general authority should establish solidly the importance of a biographical article here on Wikipedia about him. Just wanted to add that. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidentiary support: Here are the results on Brewerton I found as a result of running a simple search on the Deseret News website. Note that many of the sources originally appeared in the Church News, which was separate and distinct from the Deseret News until recently, when the two merged. Between the three search results, I hope I have proven relevancy. If more is needed, please let me know. I also look forward to what everyone else has to say on this as well, whether for or against this deletion. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::*User:Jgstokes, Can you flag the Deseret articles that contain INDEPTH coverage of his career? Also, just fyi, because Deseret, which not controlled by LDS, does have a corporate connection with the Church, it is usually necessary to find totally independent sources. The best way to argue for keeping thei or an article is to find and bring WP:RS to the page. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to E.M.Gregory: Therein lies the problem. The main issue people seem to have with LDS Church leaders is the lack of reliable sources outside of those owned, controlled, or operated by the LDS Church. But it is precisely these same sources put out by the LDS Church that establish notability, because of the service of such individuals in Church-related capacities. I appreciate the request to try and establish notability with reliable sources unrelated to the Church, but it's a catch-22 situation. This man is notable for having served in a general capacity as one who ministered worldwide because he had the assignment (including the calling and authority) to do so. Efforts have previously been requested to either establish notability outside of Church sources, or to establish a new set of criteria that would specifically relate to leaders in the LDS Church, but nothing ever happens in that regard. That said, I am happy to do my best to try and gather sources separate from the LDS Church, but it will take several days. And my worry is that this AfD will be closed, with a potential to have the article deleted, before I have a chance to get that together. Is there any way we can suspend a decision on this, pending what I can find in my research within the next few days? I may be able to get something together by Monday or Tuesday next week, or it may take longer. In the meantime, I would welcome thoughts from anyone about if, when and how to establish notability specifically for LDS leaders, and particularly the Seventy. The Seventy does have a significant leadership role, but many articles about other Seventies have been deleted simply because there was no way to establish notability for such individuals outside of their service in the LDS Church and to the members thereof. Thanks again for reaching out to me on this. This is the first AfD discussion for an article of an LDS seventy in which I have been invited to try and establish notability with sources other than those from the LDS Church, and I appreciate that more than I can say. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Disucssions run seven days.[reply]

But it is precisely these same sources put out by the LDS Church that establish notability Completely disagree with this. Someone or something is not notable on Wikipedia just because its parent organization has the resources to publish a lot of material about it. Notability is about significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note closing editor As a courtesy, please allow this discussion to run an extra seven days if that time is needed by Jgstokes to search for sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above, courtesy ping Jgstokes. I also note no discussion in 5 days, however.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the consideration shown to me regarding this discussion, particularly in granting me additional time to find sources that would qualify the subject of the article under the sufficient coverage guidelines. That said, because of health-related challenges since my last comment, I have not yet been able to do that research. I apologize for that. But I have requested comment on notability guidelines for General Authority Seventies on the Wikipedia page regarding significant coverage. I apologize for my not having been able to do the necessary research. I will watch this AfD discussion for additional comments on this issue, and will try to do the necessary research this weekend. Just wanted to pass all that along. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Request for comment: After receiving kindly additional direction on this matter, I have discovered that the relevant place to discuss general notability standards for LDS general authority seventies is here, where I have requested comment from the community. For those involved in this discussion that would like to participate in that one, I would appreciate it. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There are broad sources, from multiple countries, that show widespread coverage. Considering we give all Catholic bishops default notability, it is high time that people accept that we should give the same default notability to LDS general authority seventies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just found evidence that Brewerton was the chair of the committee that created the LDS Spanish Edition of the Bible. With use by millions of people, this is at least an add towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This year, as in the last month or so, a book entitled "Canadian Mormons was just published. It may have things to say on Brewerton.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Persuaded by User:Johnpacklambert sources. I added a citation to a book supporting Brewerton's participation in creating a LDS Spanish translation of the Bible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory: As far as I can see, the only source JPL mentioned is a book published by Deseret Book (i.e. published by the church) (??) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book to which I sourced Brewerton's involvement with the LDS translation of the Bible into Spanish was published by Cedar Fort, Inc., a privately owned, for-profit publishng house that specialized in LDS books. I do believe that there are sufficient independent sources now in the article to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I didn't ask about that part. You said "Persuaded by User:Johnpacklambert's sources". Was a mistake? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He made this specific assertion of fact. So I searched, and found an independent source for it. I had personally added several independent sources to the article earlier, and I believe that , cumulatively, they suffice to pass WP:GNG. Not ot mention that even though Deseret is somewhat borderline in therms of independence (editorially but not financially independent), it is a reliable source on fact, even for articles about Mormons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Came to this via the threads on various notability-related pages arguing that LDS general authorities should be automatically notable. When an organization writes about itself -- whether a company, church, government, etc. -- that itself does not make for notability. I don't know whether Catholic Bishops should generally be considered notable (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFF), but if so, it's because of coverage in sources other than those released by the church. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a Catholic Bishop deleted; when they come up, they tend to be kept SPEEDY; even the completely unsourced modern ones; ditto for the major Anglican, Lutheran and Eastern Churches (suffragans need more obscure churches independent sourcing). See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, but trust me on this, I so bishops regularly. that is why I think we should work out some sort of consensus on what level of LDS 70 to place in a category with the bishops of major denominations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I haven't looked at enough of those AfDs to know the results. Since they're typically kept, I can only presume that's because they receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Regardless, this is WP:OTHERSTUFF. We need in-depth coverage of this person in reliable sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi: they don't. Scroll down List of Episcopal bishops of the United States and click on any state.. Filled with unsourced Bishops like: Samuel J. Wylie, Reginald Mallett, Albert A. Chambers. I am not arguing to delete them, only that it does make me feel that a similar approach ough tto be take with LDS 70s. Only, I am unsure where to draw the line. And this is not the place. - besides which, we have adequate sourcing on Brewerton to keep, imho.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murky Water Records[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a defunct non-notable record label. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BurghRecords[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. Could be redirected to DJ Sonny. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LL Cool J. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomdizzle[edit]

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

Has received some minor routine coverage and passing mentions, but after source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to LL Cool J. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LL Cool J. I'm not 100% sure what it was, but it's defunct now, and all the coverage I can find talks about LL Cool J as well. I don't see any other possible topics for Boomdizzle, so a redirect is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Körperschall Records[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Records[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RareNoiseRecords[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like there is a compelling case that GNG is met, which is enough to keep an article even if NPROF isn't met (and that isn't so clear in this AfD). Now it looks like the present state of the article and its sourcing are questionable (unduly promotional, apparently, and the sources too pundit-ey) so I'll tag for cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Shaw (psychologist)[edit]

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

Someone who has barely left college and who is absolutely not notable as an academic, with her hundred or so citations according to Google Scholar (mostly from co-authored works). Her position of research associate is the most junior position possible, and ranks below an American assistant professor, for example. The article is already tagged for lacking notability on the French Wikipedia, where it is noted that the article was created on several different Wikipedia editions at the same time last autumn (apparently it was deleted on the Dutch Wikipedia since then). This leads me to conclude that this is a case of cross-wiki spam. Tataral (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I gotta say as the original author and 10 year long Wikipedian I'm bit miffed at the style of this afd and the claims and insinuations coming with it. First of all it is customary to ask the author before an afd or at least inform him about, which didn't happen here. Secondly the insinuation that article was created for promtional reason in several wikipedia and presumably (?) by the same person is simply not true. I have no idea, who created the French and Dutch versions and why. If I had to guess, they were probably created by people simply picking up the English version and translating it, which is not uncommon. In any case I've created the English and the German version and certainly not for promotional reasons and I have no connection to the article's subject whatsoever. The rationality behind the notability and the reason for the article's creation is not really notable as an academic in the sense of a research academic, but as tv/media/press pundit and book author on the false memory complex, which had been the subject of controversial debates in the past. She was prominently featured as a pundit in false memory documentary broadcasted by major tv channels (in Germany iirc by ZDF and later 3sat (Das getäuschte Gedächnis (the fooled memory) and Shaw was also personally featured by 3sat here and appeared also on a Nova documentary), that was the reason for the article's creation, to provide some background and profile of somebody appearing as prominent (mainstream) media pundit on a (formerly?) controversial issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not required to ask the creator for permission to nominate an article for deletion. As noted above, the manner in which this article was created across several Wikipedia projects at the same time has already been pointed out on other projects. As for notability, the article clearly claims she is a "psychologist" and notable as such. The lead section for example exclusively discusses her research, not any additional activity as a "pundit". The body of the article mentions "guest blogging" with half a sentence, while the rest of the article is solely about her as an academic. Given the way the article is written, WP:ACADEMIC is clearly the applicable notability guideline. Which leaves us with the following facts: She has very few citations in Google Scholar and a very junior position at a university, the kind of position given to recent graduates (such as herself). I also see no evidence of any activity as a "pundit" that would be sufficiently notable here. --Tataral (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  "Customary" is not "required" and nobody said anything about requesting a permission for an afd, but about informing the author about the afd and maybe ask for clarification rather than stating speculative claims. As far as the notability is concerned it can be based on different rationales and policies and as I said the notability here isn't really based on WP:ACADEMIC.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing in the article that demonstrates notability on any other grounds, not related to academic work. The article is almost exclusively about her as a (very junior) academic. --Tataral (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that the her tv/documentary appearances are not explicitly mentioned, but her book and her column are. Moreover this moves over towards a different discussion which is not about the principal nobility as such but how the article could/should be improved. When I originally setup the article my focus was primarily to provide the academic background and education of somebody appearing as a pundit in the media. The media appearances and her book can be described in more detail to make the notability more obvious to readers. Media/Press reporting about her and her research and/or inreviewing/using her as oundit include: Vice, Wired, Deutschlandfunk (public German radio):1, 2 und 3 , Daily Mail, Der Spiegel [Germany's leading weekly political magazine), New Yorker, The Times, The Guardian - weekly science podcast, Deutsche Welle, PBS Nova, New York Magazine, CBC News, Toronto Star, Heise Online (biggest German IT/Tech news), WNYC, BBC Radio. The more extensive (German) documentary that featured her as a pundit is linked in my posting further up.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It could use more sources, but I don't see a problem with her notability. @Kmhkmh: - you might have forgotten we don't use the Daily Mail anymore. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik can the Daily Mail still be used, but it is just discouraged. Anyhow I just added in the list above to illustrate the media pundit aspect with regard to notability not to be used as a source for any article content, for that any of the other more reputable sources can be used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple in-depth RS on her work exists, which meets WP:GNG even if it doesn't technically meet WP:NACADEMIC. [1][2][3][4], among others. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this got more contentious, so I want to comment a bit more on the discussion. One, meeting WP:GNG is sufficient for notability and keeping an article irrespective of whether the article subject meets a subject notability guideline. Secondly, the coverage here is much more in-depth that that of a typical pundit. Most pundits get a few paragraphs as part of a larger piece, not multiple, in-depth pieces on the crux of their research. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- meets WP:GNG in my mind, irrespective of WP:PROF. Sample coverage Wired, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The standard for inclusion of academics is the notability guidelines on academics. She does not meet any of these, and the claims that anything else meets notability ignore the easy level of being quoted if you are a pundit with out any sign of lasting impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I very much agree with that. The notability guidelines for academics are there for a reason, and here we have an article that discusses a person exclusively as an academic and portrays her as notable as such. If we can ignore those guidelines that easily, then what's the point of having them in the first place? She is, in American terms, at the instructor level academically, with just a handful of citations. Those other sources seem like a kind of WP:1E situation; she made some press-friendly claims about one popular topic (she certainly didn't invent the concept of false memories) and got them to write about it (she appears to be skilled primarily in self-promotion, judging by what happened with her biographies at least in other language WPs, her ostentatious website and Internet presence in general), but I don't think she merits a biographical article, not even on the basis of WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Johnpacklambert misunderstands or misrepresents the relationship between the General Notability Guideline — the standards of which protect everything at AfD — and the array of supplemental Special Notability Guidelines, which provide additional avenues for material to be kept for categories of subjects which have difficulty meeting the GNG standard for this reason or that. Academics, for example, might not gain coverage in the press while at the same time gaining national or international recognition in their fields. Thus the SNG alternative... Carrite (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further evaluation of subject, when referring to above !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She definitely doesn't pass NPROF, and the point that pundits are a dime a dozen and get quoted frequently if they're connected to "hot-button" issues is a very valid one as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete What editor Johnpacklambert said. + Subject of article is non-notable and fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Clearly lacking notability, fails WP:NACADEMIC et al. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the discussion is starting to miss its target a bit. We have now several posts repeatedly claiming that Shaw doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC/WP:PROF. However that was never in dispute and the argument for notability was never based on that. So let me iterate again, that the argument for notability rests on her being a popular pundit in the mainstream media and a book author, that is in particular WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST and WP:BASIC. I.e. the discussion should focus on those and whether they are passed or not. Imho they are and let me reiterate why. Over the last 2-3 years Shaw has been repeatedly covered by various mainstream media outlets in at least 4 different and in at least 2 languages (US, Canada, UK, Germany). She was one of main experts/pundit used/interviewed in 2 major documentaries on human memory (on PBS-Nova and 3sat). There are plenty of publications about her herself, her book and with her serving as an expert/advisor on memory. I've linked a list of examples publication already further up.

Now there was the argument about her being clever at self marketing. While that might be true (at least it looks that way to me) that isn't really our, that is WP's, concern as long as that happens outside of WP. WP merely assesses the external result/state, that whether somebody has reached sufficient media coverage or passed other thresholds, that generate encyclopedic interest/interest for readers to look them up in a reference work. But how that external state was reached does not really matter, i.e. whether it was by clever self marketing, chance, doing groundbreaking research or committing an infamous crime doesn't really matter. Encyclopedic notability serves the information/knowledge interest of readers, it is not a reward for hard work or good behaviour.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that this passes the GNG. I'm not !voting yet because I'm not sure. From what I can tell, WP:NACADEMIC is a lower bar than GNG precisely because most notable academics don't receive the requisite "significant coverage" because it's their work and not the person themselves that receives the coverage. The argument that Shaw passes the GNG seems to be based on equating her with her work. When discussing her work, some of the sources definitely go beyond a mere "trivial mention" of Shaw, but is it "significant coverage"? I'm not sure we have that. (When looking at the articles, most references to Shaw could be replaced with Porter without changing anything, and I don't think that level of coverage is "significant".) The Wired article for sure gives Shaw significant coverage, and less clearly so, I think the CBC piece, too. What about the Heise event announcement? Together, is that enough? Are there more? (I think I've checked every link on this page and in the article, but I haven't listened to any audio or watched any video.) -- irn (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tech news Heise on its own is no significant coverage, that was more to show that she appears or gets referenced in different types of media in different language (from German tech/engineering news like Heise to American cultural magazines like the New Yorker). Other pieces cover her in a similar fashion to the wired or the cbc article are one 3sat tv piece, a BBC Radio piece, Neue Westfälische (German newspaper), Tagesspiegel (German newspaper), Stern (German magazine), Deutschlandfunk Nova (German Radio)--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes GNG. While most of the sources cited on this page and in the article treat Shaw as a talking head or pundit or whatever and only focus on her work, that's not universal. Multiple reliable sources (at least Wired, CBC, and Der Tagesspiegel, if not more) give "significant coverage" to Shaw herself - addressing Shaw directly as the subject and in detail. Regarding NACADEMIC, I would like to point out that, in its own words, NACADEMIC is an alternative to GNG. An academic need only meet the requirements of GNG or NACADEMIC, so failure to pass NACADEMIC is irrelevant. -- irn (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm persuaded after a short spin around the Google that this is a leading figure in academic research of the phenomenon of false memory, and is recognized as such. See, for example, THIS PIECE in Wired, "False memories and false confessions: the psychology of imagined crimes: Julia Shaw uses science to prove that some memories are false. Now she's tackling criminal-justice failures." Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been demonstrated that she is not any "leading figure in academic research" of anything. She is a junior employee at the research associate level (equiv. to US instructor) who has much less than 200 citations combined (from co-authored works anyway), which is the kind of number of citations that many recent PhD graduates would have in her discipline. Having been mentioned in the media in connection with making media-friendly comments about a popular topic in which she isn't an authority of any standing doesn't give her any academic standing, and she did not invent the concept of false memories, nor is she a leading researcher in that field. It could theoretically be the case that is an example of the famous for nothing phenomenon (if she is notable for anything, it's apparently aggressive self-promotion), but the problem is that the article, and your comment here, doesn't say that she is notable for being a media figure or something; the article, like your comment, argues specifically that she is notable for research/academic merits, which is wholly untrue. --Tataral (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tataral:I agree with almost everything in this comment, and so I'd like to respond to explain a little more why my !vote differs from yours even though I see the situation from a very similar perspective. I disagree with the description of her as being famous for nothing, and I think she is notable for her research. However, she wouldn't be notable for it if she hadn't aggressively marketed herself, and that's what creates the conundrum here. Her accomplishments themselves aren't enough for a keep !vote, but because she has marketed them so well, she has received significant coverage and meets the GNG. -- irn (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect the fact fact that you reach a different conclusion, but the way I see it this article primarily serves to promote and sustain what is essentially a hoax—namely the idea that Shaw is a "leading figure in academic research" who basically discovered false memories, or something like that, instead of someone who has just completed her education and who doesn't have any real academic merits—rather than any informational, encyclopedic purpose. --Tataral (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm skeptical of the arguments that WP:NACADEMIC isn't applicable here. She's done one research study that got a significant amount of pop science coverage. Simply having her research study well-covered wouldn't allow GNG to apply. However, the Wired piece and the Tagesspiegel piece are substantial coverage of her (and not just her work), so it meets GNG. That said, it would be nice if the article relied on those references and not her LinkedIn profile. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spri[edit]

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

Not notable, article reads kind of promotional, can't find sources. Article was created by SPA. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by the person whose Ubuntu-based project this was. The wording is neutral, but just describes what it comprised rather than claiming any notability. The closest to substantial 3rd party coverage, the Softpedia review of the beta, is similar, describing what is included for each function. No evidence of attained notability found: fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester International Short Film Festival[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage for this including its alternate name "Leicester Short Film Festival". LibStar (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note they go now by The Short Cinema Film Festival ([5]) - so totally different name for BEFORE. Yet - I haven't been able to find much independent of the festival.Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the BBC and Highbeam sources in the article, it doesn't help that it keeps changing its name Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP; wikipedia is not a directory of nn festivals. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Hemp Company Private Limited[edit]

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

essentially promotional, and by an undeclared paid editor. If anyone wants to use G11/G5 I won't object. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP Spiderone 09:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References all fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Preaky (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Grau y la Clave Secreta[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Only given claim to notability is an unverifiable claim to have been nominated for a Grammy. Only evidence I can find to support the claim comes from the band's own website. Attempts to verify the nomination against an independent source met no success. Ham tech person 00:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: they do indeed have a Grammy nomination, for Best Tropical Latin Album in 2008 [6]. Richard3120 (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did you get to that portion of the site? I didn't see anything on there to lead me to something like that. Wish I would have found it before. Still not certain on whether the band would be notable, as the nomination seems to only name Grau himself. Ham tech person 08:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Ham techperson , the Grammy website has a pretty good search function for their entire database. If it shows up there (and it does) then it can be verified as real. FWI, not all Grammy's (or nominations) are equal in my opinion, as there are nearly 100 categories, not all of them particularly "marque" status, featuring some pretty obscure nominees to fill out the rolls. I'm not sure if WP:MUSIC makes the distinction, though, which is how--hypothetically--an unknown high school band director who dabbles in a weird, obscure genre as a lark could find themselves as being "wikipedia notable." As for this nomination, I'll abstain as I do not read the language of these references (and there are some found via Googling), but as a matter of observance, their Allmusic entry is a simple, insignificant listing rather than a proper profile. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being nominated for an award is normally not a sign of notability. There is a clear derth of sources in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Grammy nom (final shortlist) is enough for notability, and there's significant(ish) coverage out there: [7], [8], [9]. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evalution of supplied sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm leaning keep on this one because apart from the Grammy nomination and the interviews in the Boston Herald and El Universal, Grau has also won the Young Euro Classic Composer Award in 2011 [10], and arranged/produced two consecutive winners of the Echo Klassik Awards in 2010 [11], [12] and 2011 [13], although I fully admit this is more inherited notability than the other sources. It's not an overwhelming "keep", but Grau is clearly not a nobody in the classical music world and there's scope for improving the article. I agree with the nominator that perhaps the article would be better being renamed Gonzalo Grau to focus on Grau and his various achievements rather than his band. Richard3120 (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As mentioned, 'no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find some evidence of it being in operation'. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CKUC-FM[edit]

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

Radio station whose operational status is entirely unverifiable. Although the owner was granted a CRTC license in 2014, I've been able to find not a hint of verification anywhere that it ever actually started broadcasting: not a shred of reliable source coverage, no website, not even a listing in the town's local business directory. And we have a conflict between the two initial sources, Canadian Radio News (a far-from-reliable social media feed that posts radio and television startup and shutdown announcements) and RECNetworks, about what the station's call sign even is or was -- so I went to the definitive source for resolving such a conflict, Industry Canada's Spectrum Management database, and neither of the claimed call signs is assigned to any radio station at all. My working assumption right now is that the station didn't manage to ever actually make it to air at all -- a common problem which is precisely why WP:NMEDIA was tightened up a few years ago to require that we wait until a new radio station is verifiably on the air before we start the article. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find some evidence of it being in operation that I'm somehow missing, but in the meantime if we can't verify it we can't keep it. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree. It's hard to know whether or not a radio station is broadcasting solely based off of the information in the REC/Industry Canada databases when information about a call sign is present in them. However, when a radio call sign is missing from those databases it's very likely that it's not transmitting. Given that the call sign in the title of the article can't be found in those databases and that the possible other call sign can't be found in the latter, this station is very likely not transmitting under the title call sign and even more likely not transmitting at all. If it is transmitting there's no coverage of that fact in reliable sources. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 18:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; this fails verification and is likely to have never broadcasted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Black[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article fails WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 08:24, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's not as notable as I thought he would be.Vincelord (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Withdrawn with no non-!Keep votes extant. (Disclosure: I commented on procedure in this AfD, but did not !vote, and due to the nature of the result I do not believe that this is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. If another feels otherwise please feel free to revert and re-close.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmoor Discovery[edit]

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

Unsourced with one external link to race website. No indication of significance. Upjav (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 05:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 05:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My main criticism of the AFD is that the proposer seems to have done no work into finding anything out about the race. Worth noting WP:NTRACK. Refers to a road race that "has been held over a unique course or distance consistently over a period of 25 years." The Dartmoor Discovery is only 20 years old so would not strictly satisfy the criteria. Also worth noting that many of the races in List of ultramarathons probably do not meet the WP:TRACK criteria either, so it seems an arbitrary AFD rather than one as part of a well thought-out and discussed strategy. Nigej (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does a strategy determine whether this meets notability requirements? I had proposed this deletion as well and looked at other ultramarathons, came across this, and proposed this. If I had more time, I would/could go through and nominate others, as you noted. In terms of "doing no research", if you look online for it, it's mostly covered on its own site, rare and occasional news sources, and local race tracking websites. This doesn't meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NTRACK. Upjav (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's just that I've got an aversion to those who go around putting hatnotes in everywhere without doing any work themselves. You're happy to quote WP:NTRACK now that someone else has found it. How do you know it doesn't meet WP:GNG, surely that what we're here to find out. Nigej (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore 'no indication of significance' is an argument to avoid. That's something you fix by editing the article, not deleting it. Being only covered by "rare and occasional news sources" is also an argument that should be avoided: 'rare' is irrelevant as long as there is 'enough', and 'occasional' is an implied statment that notability is temporary. Now, the base assertion - that this race is not notable per WP:GNG - may or may not be correct, but it needs to be argued, either way, correctly, as doing otherwise poisons the well for discussion of the actual issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A simple WP:BEFORE would have avoided this AfD, it is reported on eery single year, for all of its twenty year history, etc and is close (5 years off) being inherently notable under WP:NTRACK. AfD is not cleanup so the lack of "indication of significance" is not an issue. I will also note that some journalist from forbes runs it annually and has included it in some articles, [14] [15] [16]. Dysklyver 14:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine to back down on this. Clearly need to get back and refresh myself on policy and how to adequately determine AfD eligibility and propose deletion when appropriate. Cheers, Upjav (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - this AFD seems to be a clean up request. This article subject covers WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 01:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Addiction suppression[edit]

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

There are zero reviews on this topic on pubmed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Addiction+suppression%22 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While some treatments exist to help cope with withdrawal, the claim that some substances would be anti-addictive appears fringe, which may be why it's so difficult to find WP:MEDRS about this. There are people who claimed to have been freed from drug addiction after having lived an awakening experience assisted by hallucinogenics (some related info appears to be at Hallucinogenic#Hallucinogens_after_World_War_II). I think that this is more in culture and research than in applied medicine (and the relevant article already mentions it). —Paleo Neonate – 03:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page was in fact copied from https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Addiction_suppression where it is published with an incompatible license CC-BY-SA-4.0. At some point in the future Wikipedia may change to such a license, but as for today it does not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I know exactly zero about drug related topics, and even I have heard of this. There was a major article in Wired a few years back on the topic, and I've come across several smaller mentions since. Neonate makes the point that this is "more in culture" than applied medicine, but I'm scratching my head trying to understand what that means - the Wiki is filled with culture related articles. If there is a problem related to the presentation of the information, just fix it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to said study? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What study? Do you mean the Wired article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Wired article is unlikely to meet WP:MEDRS, but it could help locate the underlying research. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to meet MEDRS? If this is really a cultural phenominon, meeting GNG should be enough. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of a source is to write content based on it, not to meet notability guidelines. All that Tigraan is saying is that the Wired source would likely be unsuitable for supporting biomedical-related content in the article, but might be a pointer to other sources that might lead to a usable source. It's all moot of course, until the Wired article is found. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much: if it does not meet MEDRS, nothing of the current article cannot be sourced to it. It could be rewritten, sure. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So why are we debating this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you brought up the possibility of a source in support of your "keep", but didn't give a link to verify. I would like to know what the source says to see if it might be useful in trying to salvage anything here, and I think that the closer deserves to know what the source says in evaluating the strength of your argument. --RexxS (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Irretrievable copyvio. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be borderline gibberish. Even if we are allowed to copy it, I don't think we should want to. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts of the West (1925 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Found no sources establishing notability. This article was previously deprodded. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a pre-internet lost film so web references are scarce. However as it has a notable cast and director it should have had reviews. There is one book reference already in the article. Searching with "Hearts of the West" 1925 film gives more reults such as in Google books. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. There's coverage in Google Books and the film has a notable cast/crew. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per AFI the film was known as Heart of the West and Heart to the West. A B-movie theatrical release with a name cast whatever the title.Koplimek (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamix II[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC criteria, no major releases on notable label. Also fails WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article and no notable releases or any sufficient independent sourcing. Local, trivial. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Menin Rodrigues[edit]

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

Non-notable person's bio. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable member and historian from Pakistan's Goan community. Several sources can be found on news. Mar4d (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking what I searched before nominating. We don't have enough coverage to write without WP:OR per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is poorly written and in my opinion falls short of primary notability recquirements for inclusion into the encylopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 08:56, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. The article reads like a glorified CV or a fan page. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you have to push for notability for what someone does "in his spare time" they probably are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A Train^talk 07:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sneed[edit]

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

Sources do not prove notability. Most are at best passing mentions or affiliated. Fails WP:ANYBIO Domdeparis (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:BIO and relevant WP:CS --EC Racing (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The principal chief of a substantial Native American nation arguably passes WP:POLITICIAN as the head of a "national or sub-national" office. At least, we have treated many other chiefs as such; see, e.g., Category:Native American politicians. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is, of course, much smaller than the Oklahoma-based Cherokee Nation but its politics do receive coverage in reliable sources, and we already have some sources presented in this article. I lean toward letting this article stand; if it does not, the content here (and in other articles about Eastern Band Cherokee chiefs) should be repurposed to improving the history section of the main article about the tribe. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I followed that link to the article on Cherokee Nation. The intro paragraph calls Larry Echo Hawk the head of the BIA. Echo Hawk has not been the head of the BIA since the spring of 2012, when he resigned to become a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The quote in the lead from Echo Hawk seems to give undue weight, and I think should be later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really think we can talk about national or sub-national politicians and even if we were NPOLITICIAN is just a guide against speedy and prodding. All bios must meet GNG and I don't believe this one does. We are not talking about the tribe itself but its leader. The sources are not in-depth secondary coverage in my opinion. Domdeparis (talk) 09:15, 6 November 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, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have mention in very broad coverage sources. I actually created an article on one of the Navajo code talkers who was on the Navajo Tribal Council, and I believe it has survived. I looked, and the article is still there. I have to admit I only ever created the article because when I took Native American history to 1900 at Brigham Young University Brown came in and spoke to our class one day. His granddaughter was one of my classmates. However the material in the article is based on reliable sources, that is why I do not mention that his son-in-law was president of the Chinle Arizona Stake, the only LDS Stake entirely on the Navajo Reservation. Because Although I can find a source to show that his son-in-law was president of that stake, and even who that man's wife was, I cannot find any sources directly linking them, especially ones where it would not be bordering on synthesis. Back to this article, I think it is a pretty clear keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Johnpacklambert: I'm sorry but I think you are confusing him with someone else this guy looks like he is in his forties tops. Have a look at the sources again I may be wrong.~~ sorry I misread your comment. I still do not believe the sources are sufficient to pass GNG Domdeparis (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an elected politician. Sort of an unusual scenario, but head of the Cherokee nation seems a sufficient post for inclusion at WP. Carrite (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is not head of the Cherokee Nation but another much smaller tribe (16,000 instead of 300,000). The info box is incorrect please follow the links and read the article. Not all elected politicians are notable as per WP: NPOLITICIAN. I believe he fails GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I come down strongly on the side that the head of a Native American tribe (is that still the correct term?) should be considered to pass WP:NPOLITICIAN #1, perhaps not in the strict wording but certainly in the intent. (The size of the tribe is irrelevant in this regard.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't get why just because it's a native American tribe he gets a pass on GNG. NPOLITICIAN is just a broad guideline to avoid speedy and prodding. All articles have to meet GNG. Unless there is a new policy that promotes positive discrimination on Wikipedia for native Americans I really don't understand. Wikipedia is supposed to be egalitarian for all nations. I think you should be arguing on the basis of policy and not your interpretation of intent. The only topic specific criteria that I know of that are superior to GNG is NPROF. Domdeparis (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've reverted my nac by request, but this seems like a clear (and apart from the nom, non-controversial) keep. WP:NPOL seems to be met and doesn't require GNG. I've added an additional source to make this even more clear. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to bludgeon the point but I totally disagree with you because WP:NPEOPLE clearly states just under the WP:BASIC criteria that also says "See also: Wikipedia:General notability guideline" at the top of the additional criteria section "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Domdeparis (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the source you added and as it is the EBCI news site it cannot be considered as independent I believe. Domdeparis (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while WP:NPOL and other specific notability guidelines can't override the need for WP:V, in practice they do allow for articles that are largely sourced to local sources and/or sources tied to the government organizations. If you pick a random article linked from Virginia House of Delegates elections, 2017, there's a good chance it will have exactly that formula. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Coach[edit]

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

promotional essay. There are sources, but NOT ADVOCACY is more basic. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually there is good references in the article and it carries meaningful content, concerns like WP:NOTADVOCACY can be addressed by tag and cleanup since the subject passess notability –Ammarpad (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOT ADVOCACY is a fundamental policy, and it means that an article whose purpose and content is advocacy or organism should be rejected forthright, as the intention was incompatible with the basic pillar of WP, NPOV. When the subject was worth writing about in the first place is a secondary consideration, and that's the proper domain of the WP:N guidelines, When the advocacy is only incidental, then the article can be fixed, but not when its the fundamental basis of the article. The only way of preventing people form using WP for advertising isto remove it, not to help them out by fixing it. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely blatant use of Wikipedia for promotion. This was created as a draft, and I can't imagine what the editor who accepted the draft was thinking of. (I see that the draft had been re-created after previously being speedy-deleted as promotional.)Breaking sticks (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Breaking sticks: please can you direct me to the similar draft that was deleted per G11? Ammarpad (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it has been deleted. However, if it's of any interest to you the page log, including the deletion log, is here. Breaking sticks (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But recreation of material under G11 is allowed once it is re written in non promotional tone, and that is why this one exist. Because if the blatant promotion that got it G11'ed were not removed, it will not even come here. So since one big problem was addressed smaller problems are surmountable, since the concept is legit, verifiable in reliable sources and notable–Ammarpad (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Article is substantiated and well well written. Hello, DGG Having accessed the article i see the fundamental issues with the article is its lack of WP:NPOV and also its subtle use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool in a certain section, which is a salient feature of WP:NOTHERE, We all know this is wrong but if those issues can be addressed properly as the editor Ammarpad suggested earlier, then the article is not a bad one, as it is well referenced. Celestina007( talk ) 20:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but ruthlessly pare back. Ammarpad is right that some of this article's sources are good, such as this scholarly paper (though I have never heard of the redlink journal it's published in) and others exclusively discussing the subject. So some of these sources do appear to attest that "financial coaching" is a real concept that meets the GNG. However, some of this article's sourcing is garbage. DaveRamsey.com? The article needs a massive cleanup for tone. A Train^talk 22:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Yes, the article exhibits POV and advocacy starting with the title. Coach is an ill-defined title, despite the groups described in the article who are trying to standardize requirements. How does a Financial Coach differ from a Financial Advisor? One is licensed, the other not. One has statutorily-defined fiduciary responsibility, the other not. Otherwise, basic functions are the same. This article then is a POV Fork. Rhadow (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a made-up concept with a name designed to circumvent laws about who can be a financial advisor. Clearly exclusively promotional. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for a concept that's not encyclopedically relevant just yet. This perhaps deserves a mention in Financial plan, but the article is too promotional so its history is not worth preserving. "Delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advocacy. Some small pieces of it might be merged into Financial literacy, Dave Ramsey, The Dave Ramsey Show, etc. It's pretty clear that this is part of the web of Dave Ramsey articles on Wikipedia and that these should all be reviewed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to expound my thoughts on this closure, so here you go.

On the face of it, a less thoughtful closer might see 7 keeps, 3 deletes, and close as "keep".

However, a number of keeps rely on a apparent sentiment that there exists community consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable (which is demonstrably inaccurate per RFC), thus the !votes by Necrothesp, JMWt, Carrite, Languages of India, AusLondoner, and Jack N. Stock (partly) and Bushranger on the basis of "it verifiably exists" bear very little weight.

However, Atsme's mention of WP:NOTDIRECTORY without specific reasoning or explanation is also not very helpful in evaluating the strenghts of arguments.

What we are left with as the most salient and valid points is TimTempletons's finding of at least some coverage, Bushrangers' and TimTempleton's warnings against our systemic Western bias, Pburka's assessment that the subject lacks evidence of "sigcov in independent reliable sources" (which is just another way to say WP:GNG) along with Cordless Larry's similar "no proven notability" argument, and multiple arguments that "paper sources" may exist and should be sought. However, closing an AfD as delete when there are twice as many !votes for keeping as deleting, regardless of the relative strengths of arguments (and discounting meatpuppets, trolls and SPAs of which there are none in this case) is practically unjustifiable.

Hopefully this sheds light on the "no consensus" close. I doubt that relisting the AfD again would have led to more resolution. Hopefully the "no consensus" result will lead to paper sources being found (or proven non-existant). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar[edit]

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

Article breaches WP:WHYN: "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." RexxS (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of secondary sources out there and I have added a couple to meet the nominator's concerns. Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing more than a passing mention in each case, just a couple of sentences. That's a long way short of WP:WHYN: We require that all articles rely primarily on third-party or independent sources. Almost all of the content is sourced to school's own website. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I searched the Central Board of Secondary Education database and did not find this school, so I removed the claim of CBSE affiliation from the article. However, I found the school listed on the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations site and added it as a reference. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) #No inherent notability: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." That's the project-wide consensus. Just because it's a secondary school, that does not make it automatically notable. And even if it were notable, policy still requires that the article is based primarily on independent sources, not simply extracts from the school's own website. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it really isn't project-wide consensus for schools. Almost all secondary schools have always been kept at AfD. And please read WP:OR! It doesn't say what you clearly think it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it is a project-wide consensus by the very definition of a WP:Guideline: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." Please read WP:STICKTOSOURCES, which is policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." And why don't you read WP:OR? – specifically: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability." It definitely does say exactly what I clearly think it does. No article that relies wholly or principally on the subject's own website as its source is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm really not going to bother arguing the toss with someone who thinks using an organisation's website as a basis for the existence of an article is OR (a very widely misinterpreted policy, unfortunately, but it is clearly summed up at the top of WP:OR) or who is apparently unaware of the long-running AfD debate on the notability of schools. You have my opinion above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        And I'm certainly not going to argue the toss with someone who is clearly unaware of the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or of the Februray 2017 RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy); Summary: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning." You need to get yourself up to date if you're going to contribute constructively to deletion discussions. I trust you'll be able to explain to the closer why your completely unsupported opinion should be given any weight at all in the face of the policies, guidelines and project-wide consensus I've shown you. --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School seems relevant here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is presented. Pburka (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the school appears to exist and it interacts with the government, therefore there must be significant secondary sources that exist about it, even if they're not available on the internet. JMWt (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Interactions with the government (permits, reports, etc.) would be primary, not secondary sources. Pburka (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't think so. I've been bored by this argument before. A government inspectors report of a school is not a primary source unless the page is about that report (which is very unlikely to be notable). JMWt (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It exists, therefore significant secondary sources must exist"? That's just WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and is a discredited line of argument. If significant secondary sources exist, the onus is on the person who adds the content to present them, per WP:V #Responsibility for providing citations. And that's policy. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've not mentioned SCHOOLOUTCOMES. WP:NEXIST specifically states and I quote: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." (my emphasis)

I am suggesting that there is a strong possibility that sources exist which give notability, and I've given a particular example such as a government school inspectors report of a school that exists. As per note 2 of the WP:GNG, government reports are considered to be relevant sources of the topic they cover in terms of notability. As per WP:ANALYSIS, a secondary source does not need to be an independent or third-party source. There is also a big difference between determining that the topic is notable and determining that a fact is verifiable as per WP:V. We may indeed need to see other, better, sources for a claim that could conceivably be written in a government inspectors report about a school. But we can certainly infer from the fact there is very likely to be a government report that this school is notable. JMWt (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're bored. However a government inspector's report is unambiguously a primary source, as it's based on the inspector's observations. Would you also claim that an NTSB report on an air crash is a secondary source? Pburka (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to you, but a government inspector's report about a school is a secondary source for the school, although it is a primary source for the inspector's opinion, and a similar distinction can be made for an NTSB report on an air crash (as a non-American I had to look up "NTSB" in an encyclopedia). Sources are not primary or secondary in themselves, but that distiction only comes into play when you consider what they are being used for, as any historian will tell you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a NTSB report gives strong indication that an air crash is notable. There are plenty of examples of other categories of things that are considered to be notable because a large amount of official paperwork must exist if the thing exists even if nobody can point directly at that paperwork on the internet. There may be occasions when an isolated school has no interaction with government and therefore no wider notability outside of the tiny group of students that attend it. But that can't be the situation for the vast majority of secondary schools that exist and certainly is not the situation for this school. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @JMWt: But the argument to delete here is not based on whether or not the school must be notable because it exists. It is based on the policy requirement that the content be principally based on secondary sources. If such sources exist, as you claim, then the content needs to be based on them, and they need to be cited. That certainly is not the case for this article. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, according to WP:NEXIST the sources do not need to be on the internet at all and the AfD needs to consider the possibility that they exist even if none of us actually have access to them. Saying that they need to be found and cited puts a particular unfair onus on keep. The fact is that your position would require you to change WP:NEXIST to remove the requirement to consider the possibility of relevant offline sources, note 2 of the WP:GNG that says gov reports are relevant to assess notability and WP:ANALYSIS which states that the sources do not need to be third party. It is hard to see a stronger policy based rationale for keep - unless you have a good reason for believing this school has not generated the usual government paperwork, your argument is not supported by policy and is toast. And, incidentally, if you don't know it is still toast. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you're trying to misuse a guideline, WP:NEXIST, to overrule policy, WP:STICKTOSOURCES: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it". WP:PAG is quite clear about that: "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence". Your argument is not supported by policy, and unlike your policy-free assertion, I've quoted the policy that supports my position. The policy is clear: No sources found = no article. It is pure nonsense to argue that some sources might exist and expect objectors to prove a negative. No, the article needs to be based primarily of secondary sources; it isn't; it has no right to be on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But then WP:STICKTOSOURCES is part of the page WP:OR which is about original research. Nobody is suggesting that anyone here is making up a school, that they're conducting original research into one or anything of the kind. So one needs to consider your quote within the context of what the page is saying and the sentence immediately after it "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery". Nobody is announcing a discovery about a school, one is just saying that if we have evidence that the school exists (which we do from the third party sources that we do have), then we can infer something about other sources that must exist and then say something about the notability. This is all within the notability guidelines and the accepted practice. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. Long-standing consensus is that articles on secondary schools are accepted when they are clearly verified by reliable sources (including inspector's reports). The frequent AfD nominations of Subcontinental schools is a case of systematic bias, as we rarely see AfDs for US or Canadian secondary schools. We include an English-language secondary school in India in the same way that we'd include a Hindi-language secondary school in Canada. The closure of the February 2017 RFC suggested that a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find sources – at minimum, this search should include some local print media. The nomination here has no mention of a search of local print media, thus failing WP:BEFORE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE is a useful recommendation, but has no status, not even as a guideline. Conversely, the requirement for the article content to be based on secondary sources is policy and this article fails it. The Februray 2017 RfC concluded that your argument of "we've kept them previously, so we should keep them now" is circular and needs to be discounted. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - We know your point of view, there's no need to restate it. By the same argument, all policies and guidelines are circular. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you'll find that policy is rather more than just my point of view; I wonder why you feel the need to argue against clear policy if you're already aware of it? As for "all policies and guidelines are circular", you'll find that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, and that no policies or guidelines were expressly deprecated by the RfC. But your argument was – in those exact terms. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the GNG, NEXIST and ANALYSIS are more fundamental policy for determining notability than anything you have cited or even the RfC. If you want to challenge the general rationale for keeping secondary schools, you need to change the wording of all of these policies. JMWt (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG doesn't need to be reworded for a school article to be deleted - it just needs to be demonstrated that the particular school doesn't meet its requirements, surely? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued that government reports are very likely to exist for this school. Therefore it is notable as per note 2 of the GNG and NEXIST. The onus is therefore on delete to indicate why this school does not appear in government paperwork given that almost every secondary school everywhere is very likely to. JMWt (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: And I think you'll find that GNG, NEXIST and ANALYSIS are not policy. If you feel that the guidelines you're using conflict with the relevant policies that I have shown you, the onus is on you to change the policy, since policy on Wikipedia supersedes any guidelines. Case closed. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish. As per WP:DEL the way to determine whether a page is to be deleted is to consider the notability against the notability guideline, particularly the WP:GNG. In fact there is no contradiction between the "policy" and the "guidelines" when the one follows from the other. This is in contrast to "essays" or "outcomes" which are descriptive. Referencing the WP:GNG is not somehow ignoring WP policy. If you don't like it, that's fine - but you are contradicting the very standards and policies that are customarily used to determine the notability of many different pages at AfD. JMWt (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently deceptive. You've carefully avoided WP:DEL7 and WP:DEL14:

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Any other use of the article ... namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace

All of the attempts to find reliable sources have turned up nothing more than entries in directories, apart from the briefest mention of one year's exam results in The Hindu. That's nothing like what is needed to write an article. One established separate policy governing inclusion of articles in mainspace is WP:No original research #Using sources, which excludes any article that has no reliable third-party sources. All your hand-waving about notability guidelines is just distraction from the fact that there are no independent sources available to base this article on. If you had your way, a spammer could write an article about a school based entirely on its own website (which is what actually happened here), then rely on enablers like you to argue that some secondary sources must exist, so the article has to be kept. We write articles based on reliable secondary sources, not guesswork, and articles lacking those sources need to be deleted. That's what this process is about, not some sort of intellectual navel-gazing about what might be, if only we could find the sources. If you're that keen on secondary school articles, why not write one on St Rexx High School – I'm sure there must be some secondary sources for it somewhere. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that secondary schools of verified existence are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, just to make you aware that the closing statement in a recent school AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, discounted keep rationales such as that. That's not to say that they will be discounted here, but I thought you might want to know what has happened before. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A closing statement by an editor who expressed a strong "anti-school" opinion in the RfC. I have to say I am deeply uncomfortable with this editor closing school AfCs having expressed an opinion at that RfC, especially by discounting "pro-school" opinions. We all know this is a controversial issue and closing these AfCs should be left to uninvolved editors. Anything else will be seen as partisan, and rightly so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, can I suggest that you take that AfD to deletion review? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing has been found to show the school exists. Because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, more work needs to be undertaken to find sources in the other Languages of India, including offline sources, especially in light of the nom indicating they did not complete the steps at WP:BEFORE. AusLondonder (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely an English school is likely to have sources in English, yet no-one voting to keep has been able to find any. Pburka (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's often forgotten in these sorts of debates that the Five Pillars, the fundamental baserock of Wikipedia, states "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (My emphasis added). Secondary schools are the sort of information that is consistent with a gazetteer's content. In addition, it is very long-standing WP:CONSENSUS that secondary schools that can be verified are considered notable. The article does need work and references, but there is no deadline for those, and bearing in mind WP:BIAS as well the conclusion can only be that the enclopedia is not improved by the deletion of this article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that the very essay you linked to, WP:OUTCOMES, explicitly contradicts what you wrote? It clearly states Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Consensus has changed and you need to accept that. --RexxS (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, consensus clearly has not changed, despite some editors wishing to believe that it has. The RfC was inconclusive and its wording did not set out to change consensus on the established notability of secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the RfC was patently conclusive, and the closer made clear the following changes to previous consensus:
      - Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
      - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.
    - Since the question asked was "whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable", it is false to pretend that its result did not establish a new consensus on notability of secondary schools, no matter how much a small die-hard band of opposers wish to believe otherwise. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the notability guidelines. I'm with Jimbo here, when he writes "I don't think that, in general 'a whole pile of government paperwork' is what makes something notable". Such piles of paperwork also exist for primary schools, but we don't use that as a reason to keep them. He also makes the point that secondary school stubs can be an invitation to boosterism and vandalism, which is a point I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School and which I will repeat here: I have a set of school articles on my watchlist that survived AfD. They are like flypaper for vandalism, promotionalism and unsourced additions. I would be a bit more sympathetic to "keep" arguments if those making them spent more time trying to ensure that kept school articles are maintained properly, but often they just come up with a source or two in the AfD and never actually edit the article concerned (sorry if this is a mischaracterisation based on an incomplete sample, but it has been my experience). Keeping school articles for which there are very few sources wastes editors' time further down the line, and I feel that this should be taken into account more than it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're going to delete certain articles just because they're a magnet for vandalism then there are many more articles we should delete: Adolf Hitler, for instance! And if we're deleting articles that are magnets for promotionalism, then most articles on organisations of all types should go, since their members have a tendency to add such material. They're really not valid arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that we delete them just because they're a magnet for vandalism or promotionalism. I am suggesting that we might want to take those things into account amongst other factors, especially in marginal cases. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not as versed in secondary school notability guidelines as the others here, but I did a search and found some coverage in the Hindu, one item of which I added. All the coverage is fleeting and minor; there is no indepth coverage (that I can find) in English, and absent any guidelines I'd be voting delete, but what's here seems to be just enough to satisfy the guidelines. I also see them in several directories listing schools - I know, primary sources, but it seems pretty clear this school exists. Hopefully more coverage will turn up down the road. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which guidelines do you feel is satisfies? (The relevant ones are WP:ORG and WP:GNG). Pburka (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. We've shown that they exist with a minimum of sourcing. If there was any way to merge to a controlling body, I'd support that as well, but a quick glance at the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations articles show that won't work. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a guideline though, Timtempleton. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Citing this page in AfD. Indeed, the section on schools notes the outcome of an RfC which concluded that "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm at a weak keep. I'm also basing this on my history at AfD seeing many Indian articles targeted because the creator's English was flawed and there's a bias against some Indian sources, particularly in the entertainment industry, because of their fawning nature, which stands in direct contrast to our relatively more measured publications. In any case, this is going to be at worst a no consensus. If there's ever any firmer policy decision on high schools, we can revisit. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the I exist therefore I'm notable argument fails GNG. We have to look at WP:NOTDIRECTORY which is policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INTER Active[edit]

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

Non-notable book series by non-notable authors. Lacking in any coverage reliable or otherwise that I can find. Fails WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (books) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epernicus[edit]

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

Not notable Natureium (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appears to have subsequently operated as TrialNetworks which was then acquired by DrugDev in 2014 [17]. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am finding little but passing mentions ([18] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). By the time of a 2010 blog they were presenting themselves on 3 fronts: "our public Epernicus Network, our Epernicus Solutions business, and Epernicus Clinical Research Systems". The first of these appears to be what was presented in the article and possibly the business re-oriented to the third, which continued for a time as TrialNetworks, but that is my speculation. I am not seeing evidence that the attempted network under the Epernicus name attained notability, whether by WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arpita Mukherjee[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. The referencing is very weak. I have tried to find better, but all the Google hits I have found are for another Arpita Mukherjee, a singer. Maproom (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of meeting WP:ENT and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~

http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/sa-re-ga-ma-pa-winner-arpita-mukherjee-wants-to-balance-bollywood-and-indie-music-4762398/

http://thehitavada.com/Encyc/2017/7/26/Striving-for-balance.aspx

http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Cinema/2016-09-09/Sandeep-Batra-and-Arpita-Mukherjee-perform-live-at-the-music-Launch-of-Ek-Tha-Hero/252993

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/music/170516/melody-matters-arpita-share-her-favourite-playlist.html

~~See Fame Gurukul Marvellous Spider-Man 17:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)~~ The article exists with different name.[reply]

Delete and move Arpita Mukherjee (singer) to Arpita Mukherjee. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Growth[edit]

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

Non-notable SEO company. Citations are a mix of "fastest growing" lists, advertorials, business partner lists, etc. No significant coverage. Citations are peppered into the article to increase reference count, but rarely actually verify the facts cited. Borderline spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which was briefly in draft but then moved into mainspace without independent evaluation. Appearance on fastest-growing and best-places-to-work and award-finalist lists may be gratifying for a firm but do not point to encyclopaedic notability. The best of the references is probably the 4 paragraph "CIO Story" item but it lacks the substance needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Low-participation discussion with neither interest nor consensus after an extended time. The article can, of course, be nominated for deletion again at some future point, but I note that some improvement has been made since this discussion was initiated. bd2412 T 00:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JRiver Media Center[edit]

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

Non-notable, most references fail reliability per WP:UGC ViperSnake151 Talk 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's a speedy deletion category for non-notable software, this would have qualified. Alexius08 (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doing a WP:BEFORE turns up countless hits in Stereophile magazine, among other sources. This seems like the media software of choice for hi-fi nerds, which would explain why the article has been here since 2005. A Train^talk 19:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh King Madrid[edit]

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

This individual has not attracted sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smartse. Hope you're well. What do you think of these coverages of the subject from Forbes, FS, Influencive... Warmly, Lourdes 18:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lourdes: In short I don't consider any of them reliable sources: anything at forbes.com/sites/ is outside of any editorial control and is essentially user-generated content. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority of what's written there can't be considered reliable and isn't suitable for determining notability. Future sharks shows no signs of reliability and they invite anyone to be "interviewed" from the looks of this document that's likely the source of this article too - for a $5000 fee! (As an aside note that the author of the "interview" Alejandro Rioja also promoted themselves here). Similar story for Influencive - note that the author is a marketing exec and at the end of the page it says "Opinions expressed here by Contributors are their own" which again indicates that there is zero editorial oversight. SmartSE (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Subject of article fails primary notability requirements such as WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clearly a puff piece. It would need to be TNTed to meet standards, but there is still no clear sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and wP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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