Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 October	15 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shailender Singh Monti[edit]

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

Local politician. Coverage is routine and there's no indication the subject meets WP:NPOLITICIAN or the WP:GNG. Deprodded by Atlantic306 based on the size of Delhi, but I don't see how this changes the fact that Singh is a municipal official (and therefore is not inherently notable per NPOL/WP:POLOUTCOMES), or the level of non-routine coverage about him. – Joe (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City council is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass regardless of the city's size — at the municipal level of political office, notability depends on being reliably sourceable as the subject of substantial press coverage, and nobody gets an automatic notability freebie just for existing. Delhi is certainly large and prominent enough that a substantial and properly sourced article would probably be kept — but this is based entirely on primary sources (the website of the city council and the website of his political party) with no evidence of media coverage shown whatsoever. Again, it's the media coverage about him, not simple verification in primary sources that he exists, that gets a city councillor over NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, City council is not an automatic WP:NPOL.No RS here to substantiate notability. Possibly there is some in Indian Media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Davlouros[edit]

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

Whether this is just one individual or two different ones interwoven, I don't see where either of these business people meet WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some sources here that discuss the companies this individual works for, but they mainly don't discuss him. IMHO not enough RS at the moment to substantiate a page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far below the threshold for notability for a businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus/procedural close. There is no consensus here after a week of discussion. The discussion at VPP may end up generating a new guideline that this article and its cousins would fall under, so there is little point in relisting for the moment. This close should not be interpreted as a barrier to carrying out whatever is decided at VPP. A Train^talk 12:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-Cambodia Relations[edit]

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

Another boilerplate article on bilateral relations between two countries, which contains just enough content to demonstrate that such relations exist, and sources the fact to a single government press release. As always, with almost 200 independent nations on earth we cannot and do not maintain 40,000 articles about diplomatic relations between Country A and Country B for every possible combination of A and B -- we maintain articles about the ones that can be substanced and reliably sourced to media coverage about the significance of the relationships, such as Canada-U.S. or Cambodia-China, and not for every combination of two countries that can be sourced to just one government press release. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: As stated in the discussion guidelines for AfD, "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator" Given that those reasons have now been addressed, please withdraw your nomination. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominating an article for deletion on the same day as it was started is an act of bad faith in my book. Moreover, Google Scholar reveals a number of articles and books that could add content, like "Wirick, Gregory, and Robert Miller. Canada and missions for peace: lessons from Nicaragua, Cambodia, and Somalia. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CA, 1998.", "Eayrs, James George. In Defence of Canada: Indochina, roots of complicity. Vol. 5. Univ of Toronto Pr, 1965." and "Kerr, Jeffrey L. "" Honest brokers"? Canada and the International Commission for Supervision and Control, Cambodia: 1954 to 1964." (1998): 0385-0385." It seems WP:BEFORE would have been relevant here.--TM 23:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: Of course, BEFORE is always relevant to AfD. My concern is WP:REALPROBLEM. The creator, whom I've run into before, has been creating these bilateral articles without making any real effort at a claim of notability. This was nom'd seven hours after creation which is more than enough time. While I don't concede notability, this could be a case for WP:TNT. Let a responsible editor that can make a real go at the subject write it. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the nominator hasn't nominated this article based on notability. Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's argument is a lack of SIGCOV and I agree. Again, the editor making these articles isn't considering WP:N. They're making articles about every conceivable dyad. The nominator isn't making an argument about NOTPAPER, which is what you seem to intone below. Every article subject has to be notable. This subject isn't. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think if the new RS can be added, then it would be notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, this miserably fails WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the three scholarly articles I posted above?--TM 00:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to dig those sources up and add any relevant content to the article, great. Until then, the article lacks multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A few hits on google scholar ≠ notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia notability works. Wikipedia notability is defined outside of Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's wrong (quite persistently, I might add) about how Wikipedia notability works. It is not enough to just say that better sources exist out there somewhere — a solid WP:GNG-passing volume of sourcing has to be demonstrated, not just asserted, to exist before you get any right to claim that you're the only one who really understands how notability works while everybody else is an idiot who needs to sit through your lectures. Anybody can simply claim that better sourcing exists for anything — I could claim that Margaret Atwood wrote a book about my cat if I didn't actually have to prove it — so it's not enough to just assert that a subject passes GNG if the evidence that they pass GNG isn't explicitly shown. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability states that, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..."

The issue here is that the OP wanted to see sources in the article to satisfy WP:N.

WP:N states, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. 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. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."

My statement stands. Unscintillating (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not demonstrated just because somebody asserts that better sources probably exist somewhere — it has to be a known fact that better sources do exist somewhere, namely because somebody has shown sufficient evidence of that. If all anybody had to do was say that better sources exist, and not actually prove it, then everybody could just say that about everything that exists at all, and we'd never be able to delete anything ever again. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argumentum ad absurdum is not based on the issue at hand.

The issue here is that the OP wanted to see sources in the article to satisfy WP:N. Please see my previous response for a quote from WP:NEXIST, which shows that WP:Notability does not require that sources be posted in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Argumentum ad accuracy, based precisely on the exact issue at hand. The fact that notability is based on the existence of adequate sourcing, rather than necessarily on the sources already present in the article, is all very well and good — but the existence of adequate sourcing most certainly does have to be demonstrated by hard proof before there's a valid keep case to be made on the basis of that existence of adequate sourcing. It cannot just be asserted without showing adequate evidence of it, precisely because anybody can just claim that about anything if they don't have to prove it. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that sources don't have to be in the article to for WP:N.

As for the part about "proof", I'll just say here that your assertion lacks a citation. Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen a few of these on WP:NPP every week for the past few months. A redirect solution for all ~50k country pairs may be necessary to discourage creation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article has been renamed Canada–Cambodia relations. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia hosts millions of articles, and as a paperless encyclopedia, can host millions more. Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then why don't we keep articles about you and me and my mother's neighbour who got into the papers for finding a pig in her yard, if the lack of any technical restrictions on how many articles we have the ability to host is a reason to keep something in and of itself? Because we have notability standards to differentiate what qualifies for an article on here and what doesn't, that's why. And one of those standards is WP:GNG, which requires more reliable sourcing than anybody has shown here as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one suggested that it is policy to keep articles because we have the technical capability of doing so, so what is your point? Unscintillating (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one suggested that it's policy, but you were quite clearly suggesting that it's a reason in and of itself to keep this — the only possible reason for saying "Wikipedia hosts millions of articles, and as a paperless encyclopedia, can host millions more" in an AFD, is if you're attempting to suggest that Wikipedia's technical capacity to host a limitless number of articles is in and of itself a reason for keeping the article under discussion. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The antecedent is your statement, "we cannot...maintain 40,000 articles about diplomatic relations between Country A and Country B for every possible combination of A and B". In contrast, WP:NOTPAPER, which "describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", says, "Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content."

In this very AfD, Power~enwiki has proposed populating all 40,000 of those pages. So what is the basis of your claim that these pages are not maintainable, any more than any other 40,000 articles on Wikipedia? Unscintillating (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

40,000 unsourced boilerplate pages which just state that the topic is a thing that exists != 40,000 properly written and properly referenced articles about notable things that people actually pay attention to and read and edit and watchlist. Our overarching goal is quality, not quantity: 40,000 good quality articles is not a problem, while 40,000 "X is a thing that exists, the end" boilerplates is a problem. Not the number itself, but the quality of what's getting counted. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread at WP:VPP that is relevant to this AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Brice[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from participating in a 'historic' fashion show. The reference to Huffington Post does not mention Brice at all, though I have found the original one that does, and will add it, plus one other. Despite this, and recognising sources to the 1970s may be scarce, I can find no really significant third party sources (except a number of blogs, plus one book recounting the fashion show event) to strongly evidence Notability, so I think a consensus !vote would be appropriate here. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is based on sources, and we lack sources to show that Brice was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. just mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion of possible page moves should be done through a separate move request. bd2412 T 04:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Refugees (female folk trio)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, each artist has their own page which does mention this group but there is not enough material to have its own page and is best left to the own individual articles. NZFC^(talk) 01:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Lefsetz Letter] which suggests notability, and have posted something on the talk page encouraging the creator to see what else could be found. (as the source above says, they are a pretty 'off-grid' sort of band.) RobinLeicester (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete "Weak" because I wanted to weigh in with a keep. This is a trio of three accomplished singer/songwriters, and I thought they'd easily meet GNG. But all I could find was this, from NPR. JSFarman (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep, sort of~~ Dabify. I get that this band isn't notable by itself, but given that we have other articles that mention it, it seems kind of dumb to not have this as a navigation aid. If there were only one article that mentioned this band, it would be a no-brainer to turn this into a redirect. Given that, it seems silly to delete it just because there's multiple mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS (and only marginally related to this AfD): If we do end up keeping this, I'd move The Refugees to The Refugees (novel), and make The Refugees a WP:DAB page which points to The Refugees (novel), The Refugees (TV series), and The Refugees (female folk trio). And, of course, the reverse-pointing hatnotes on all of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my keep !vote. The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced the right fix is to do this as a dab page, pointing directly to the individual members. I've done a sample at User:RoySmith/The Refugees -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep For the same logic as RoySmith - also noting all the three members have their own pages. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added references, including the NPR piece identified above, to the article. I think there is enough material to meet WP:BAND. gongshow talk 19:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also recommend changing the title of the article to The Refugees (band), as one of the members is a man. gongshow talk 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies WP:NBAND criterion 6. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Add the additional sources. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 14:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GetRight[edit]

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

Not notable and fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Additional coverage was identified at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (2nd nomination) but was not added to the article. Peter James (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the links above, I tend to agree, it looks like it was notable software, commonly in use. To round out the article, as there were too few references on it, I have added the links above, from the previous afd discussion. Looking at some of them, indeed GetRight looks like it was at least, a fairly well known application. Some of the links look like they are not working, but may be findable on the Internet Archive. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 09:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Weinberg[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, non notable actor with small roles and not many references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of minor roles does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Sakhi Hazara[edit]

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

Not much coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. If anything just way WP:TOOSOON Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best we may have one reliable source, but it does not say enough about Ghulam Sakhi Hazara to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both sources are self-published.96.127.242.251 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian Nobel laureates[edit]

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

No need for such per WP:LISTCRUFT. We are not bound to improve such stuff. Greenbörg (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Russia_and_Soviet_Union per WP:ATD-R – Already sufficiently covered there. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Russian Nobel laureates.
Per WP:LISTPURP, functions as a useful navigational aid, as evidenced in part per the 1,619 page views the page has received in the last thirty days.
Conversely, the category page has only received 126 page views in the last thirty days.
Lastly, the listcruft essay is just that, an opinion essay, not a notability guideline.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I am going to address your points:

WP:NOTDUP says, as a conclusion: 'When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant. This applies to both sides of the argument.
Categories are what are meant to be navigational aids, and WP:LISTPURP says that The list may be a valuable information source. The list is not a valuable information source as its content is already at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Russia and Soviet Union with more information than this article has. This article consists of no prose. See WP:NOTSTATS—which as a policy surpasses MOS—especially point #3 which states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Also, page views are not a measure of notability.
Same as above; page views are not a measure of notability.
This point is fair, but per my statements above I will not be swinging towards keep based on your !vote.

BTW, I have changed my !vote to 'redirect'. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 07:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel this is a valid navigational approach. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLT; no need to delete or redirect. ansh 666 18:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Greenbörg has nominated a batch of similar articles, which have been receiving inconsistent participation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), a list of five entires, was redirected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Nobel laureates, a list of four entries, was kept.

If you participate here, please consider participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Danish Nobel laureates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish Nobel laureates, or consider starting a discussion at Talk:List of Nobel laureates by country. It may be helpful to set a guideline for a minimum number of entries before breaking out a separate article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Polish_Nobel_laureates was relisted, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Swedish_Nobel_laureates redirected, Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/List_of_Portuguese_Nobel_laureates redirected, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of Liberian Nobel laureates redirected, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Argentine Nobel laureates kept. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bloody mess, I have no idea why this was not a multiple nomination. I believe all should be redirected. Dysklyver 15:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. We can hash otu minimums at a VPP or a RFC. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish Nobel laureates[edit]

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

No need for such per WP:LISTCRUFT. We are not bound to improve such stuff. Greenbörg (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement just seems to consist of hurling abuse and then stating the obvious - nobody is bound to do anything on Wikipedia. Could we please have a more policy-compliant reason for deletion for this and the other similar articles nominated? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Denmark per WP:ATD-R – No Wikipedia articles about 'Danish Nobel laureates' or such; thus easily fails list notability criteria. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It only took me a few seconds to find this book published by a university press. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was the only one of a kind when it was made, and where's the second source that GNG requires? J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. If a whole book is published by a university press about a subject then that is much better than the two random web sites that you seem to want. Have you actually put any thought into the question of whether this topic belongs in an encyclopedia rather than silly Wikilawyering about the number of sources? Please use some common sense. As I said before, I found that source within a few seconds of seeing your first comment above. I'm sure if you spent a few minutes looking further you would find many more sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires multiple sources. It says that quite clearly. Also, the book is case of notability for Danish Nobel laureates, not the list. Plus, even if that article existed, I would !vote for a merge into that article, as this list is quite short and could easily fit into a bigger article. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Danish Nobel laureates.
Per WP:LISTPURP, functions as a useful navigational aid, as evidenced in part per the 420 page views the page has received in the last thirty days.
Conversely, the category page has only received 40 page views in the last thirty days.
Lastly, the listcruft essay is just that, an opinion essay, not a notability guideline.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I am going to address your points:

WP:NOTDUP says, as a conclusion: 'When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant. This applies to both sides of the argument.
Categories are what are meant to be navigational aids, and WP:LISTPURP says that The list may be a valuable information source. The list is not a valuable information source as its content is already at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Denmark. See WP:NOTSTATS—which as a policy surpasses MOS—especially point #3 which states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Also, page views are not a measure of notability.
Same as above; page views are not a measure of notability.
This point is fair, but per my statements above I will not be swinging towards keep based on your !vote.

BTW, I have changed my !vote to 'redirect'. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 07:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Denmark, not because this list fails to meet any policy or guidelines (it does not), but as a simple editing decision to avoid unnecessary duplication. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Denmark. There's nothing in the article under discussion that's not already included in the suggested target section. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel this is a valid navigational approach. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLT; no need to delete or redirect. ansh 666 18:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Greenbörg has nominated a batch of similar articles, which have been receiving inconsistent participation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), a list of five entires, was redirected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Nobel laureates, a list of four entries, was kept.

If you participate here, please consider participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish Nobel laureates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Nobel laureates, or consider starting a discussion at Talk:List of Nobel laureates by country. It may be helpful to set a guideline for a minimum number of entries before breaking out a separate article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Polish_Nobel_laureates was relisted, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Swedish_Nobel_laureates redirected, Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/List_of_Portuguese_Nobel_laureates redirected, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of Liberian Nobel laureates redirected, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Argentine Nobel laureates kept. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the two editors above - in the context of navigation, and as per WP:CLT Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can make a minimum number at some other place. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish Nobel laureates[edit]

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

No need for such per WP:LISTCRUFT. We are not bound to improve such stuff. Greenbörg (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Spain per WP:ATD-R – Only seven entries; already sufficiently covered at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Spain. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Spanish Nobel laureates.
Per WP:LISTPURP, functions as a useful navigational aid, as evidenced in part per the 540 page views the page has received in the last thirty days.
Conversely, the category page has only received 44 page views in the last thirty days.
Lastly, the listcruft essay is just that, an opinion essay, not a notability guideline.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I am going to address your points:

WP:NOTDUP says, as a conclusion: 'When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant. This applies to both sides of the argument.
Categories are what are meant to be navigational aids, and WP:LISTPURP says that The list may be a valuable information source. The list is not a valuable information source as its content is already at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Spain with sufficient information. This article consists of no prose. See WP:NOTSTATS—which as a policy surpasses MOS—especially point #3 which states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Also, page views are not a measure of notability.
Same as above; page views are not a measure of notability.
This point is fair, but per my statements above I will not be swinging towards keep based on your !vote.

BTW, I have changed my !vote to 'redirect'. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 07:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion is one of 10 similar ones with arguments being copied-and-pasted. In the Spanish case this process has led to a misstatement: its content is already at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Spain with more information than this article has, which is evidently incorrect: Noyster (talk), 08:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per J947. I'm not checking all 10 nominations, but I assume the same arguments apply to all of them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel this is a reasonable navigational approach. Carrite (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLT; no need to delete or redirect. ansh 666 18:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Greenbörg has nominated a batch of similar articles, which have been receiving inconsistent participation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), a list of five entires, was redirected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Nobel laureates, a list of four entries, was kept.

If you participate here, please consider participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Danish Nobel laureates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Nobel laureates, or consider starting a discussion at Talk:List of Nobel laureates by country. It may be helpful to set a guideline for a minimum number of entries before breaking out a separate article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 17:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Polish_Nobel_laureates was relisted, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Swedish_Nobel_laureates redirected, Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/List_of_Portuguese_Nobel_laureates redirected, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of Liberian Nobel laureates redirected, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Argentine Nobel laureates kept. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and my other !votes. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fact versus opinion[edit]

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

Page does not expand beyond what the articles Fact and Opinion cover. Only sources are online dictionaries which only give the definition for fact and opinion. So, this article should also be deleted per WP:NOTDICT -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I note, too, that the article on Opinion distinguishes that term from Fact in the lead paragraph. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is just two sentences to distinguish facts from opinions, but as Wikipedia already has an article on Facts and an article on Opinions, it seems a little silly to have this as a separate article. Vorbee (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not obvious that fact is the right place to cover this, but it does so very well. FourViolas (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a plausible search term and fact isn't a great redirect target. The article's quality is joke-level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clrealy an ineligible subject to have an article on Wikipedia, delete per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sabrina Carpenter#Tours. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The De-Tour[edit]

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

Minimal tour (in terms of dates and venues) by minimal artist (in terms of popularity etc.). There is no coverage whatsoever to suggest that this is notable per WP:NTOUR; what we have here is simply factoids for the fans. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution Tour, and I'll ping the participants: User:Finngall, User:Metropolitan90, User:Gongshow, and User:Jax_0677. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - If notability beyond the existence of the tour cannot be proven, then the article should be redirected to Sabrina_Carpenter#Tours with history in tact. BTW, should Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour have an article if it had an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sabrina Carpenter#Tours per nom and WP:NTOUR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect - Sources provided are press releases and routine coverage. No evidence that the tour is independently notable. --Finngall ^talk 17:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Lack of in-depth coverage; subject does not appear to meet WP:NTOUR. gongshow talk 06:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:NTOUR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Hearts (film)[edit]

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

Unclear notability, created by a blocked SPA with the goal of promoting Kasey Ryne Mazak. Calton | Talk 16:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability to be found anywhere. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.per nom not notable fails WP:NFILM .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found from any of the searches. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Defence Systems[edit]

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

Self sourced with no in-depth coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 11:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 11:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 11:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 11:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verifiable. All of the references are to their (currently non-functional) website; all I can find are telephone-book style directory listings. (and unrelated things such as [1]) The name is so generic I'm not certain what this refers to. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, seems to fail WP:PROMOTION, etc. As the nominator points out, I don't see more coverage elsewhere. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally unverifiable --Molestash (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very hard to find much of anything in a BEFORE (doesn't help their name is used much more notable companies and uses) - Searches with "Integrated Defence Systems"+Pakistan+<product name> didn't yield much of anything. Domain name is dead. Article itself doesn't assert notability - per the (somewhat WP:V article in that it was possible to verify some of these products were produced by IDS as some point) - the company produced a very small UAV, a cluster munition (in anti-armor and anti-personnel versions), flares, and batteries - which would make this a pretty small aerospace producer - which generally would not be notable.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Kierzek (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under criterion G11 of speedy deletion criteria; unambiguous advertising or promotion. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC#Appropriate_closures #4. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Systems Limited[edit]

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

Self sourced with no in-depth coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Entirely self-cited and 100% promotional, with no indications of notability or significance. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 15:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Moscow International Medical Cluster[edit]

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

From https://mimc.global/, "By 2029, the cluster will host 15-20 facilities, the first ones will be ready to begin operating in 2018." Appears to be WP:CRYSTAL. Per article the organization is still trying to attract investors in 2017. Verges on Advert. reddogsix (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a federally authorized megastructure that's under construction, and that local dignitaries seem to want to get involved in. Smooth alligator (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see lots of coverage in reliable sources. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,This is a translation of articles from Russian Wikipedia. A cluster is a large-scale national project whose activities are related to such an important field like medicine and healthcare. Until recently, the project could be considered existed only on paper - were the development plans and nothing more. In September there was the first official cluster members and activities for the near future (2018). There is reason to believe that the number of participants in the near future will expand and appear more relevant information. D'MaGog (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aufa Assagaf[edit]

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

Since this actor has starred in only 3 movies so far, (so he didn't get multiple significant roles in movies for the time being, as required) and the coverage from reliable sources is not much for the time being, it seems that it is a bit WP:TOOSOON for an article to be considered. Kostas20142 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As yet non-notable actor. He has a couple of minor roles in minor films, and a lead role in a minor film. Some occasional mentions in Indonesian press [2][3] but nothing significant, and insufficient to support notability under WP:GNG. Fails WP:NACTOR. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammersoft. Several mentions, yet fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Denery[edit]

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

Being the member of borderline notable garage bands is not an indication of notability. There is no indication Denery was particularly notable in the groups had a significant solo career. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a member of multiple bands does not normally make an individual notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:MUSIC and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco UCS B460 M4 Blade Server[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PRODUCT, not notable enough for a standalone article. Article and sources are little more than spec sheets. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything here to justify keeping this, as either a distinctly notable product, nor as an encyclopedic description. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find in depth RS about this particular product. Cisco blade servers are discussed in a general manner at Cisco Unified Computing System, but I don't see a compelling reason to redirect. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Alex Shih. Reason: WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Deleon[edit]

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

The article's subject canot pass WP:NBIO or WP:GNG for the time being. There is almost no coverage from independent, reliable sources. The source provided in the article are closely related to this person. Kostas20142 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Widr. Reason: WP:CSD#G4. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kasey Ryne Mazak[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR, since the actor doesn't have multiple roles in notable movies, as required. WP:GNG or WP:NBIO are not met either, since there is no significant coverage by reliable sources. Most of hits are mere mentions, or his filmography. Kostas20142 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nominated for speedy deletion due to the recent discussion of which I was unaware.--Kostas20142 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as G4 or G5. And salt. --Calton | Talk 16:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 13:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Canada[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be many independent reliable sources that cover this mall in depth, thus making it fail both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 13:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sohan Borcar[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Only passing mentions in the sources. Has only done one feature film as a supporting actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. FITINDIA 13:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not had multiple significant roles in notable works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly only a supporting actor with no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Therefore fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Dysklyver 15:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Looking further agree I was mistaken. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Bahlo[edit]

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

In need of significant independent coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "In need of" according to what standard? She clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the award of the Moran Medal seems significant. Also, it's rare that academic work is covered by the general press, but here's an article in Sydney Morning Herald:

"'Treasure map' identifies first genetic clues to form of blindness"

This is a strong indicator of notability and significance, so it's a "keep" for me, on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well published and cited as far as I can tell. Science press and mainstream everyday press coverage, so notable to the general public too. Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Doc James: Do you have any evidence for your accusation that this is the result of paid editing? Because the main contributors appear to be Bitazeighami (who has edited only this article, so we know nothing about any other interests they may have), and GreenMeansGo, a long-term editor (with contributions back to July 2008) under a recent name change with a cleaner block log than me. This is a serious accusation, so if you do have evidence it would be helpful for the AfD. If you do not, you should not be impugning these editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:David Eppstein. Looking at this further and I believe I am mistaken. Have removed the tag and will close this as keep. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations and awards are a clear pass of WP:PROF. I'm also puzzled by the paid editing tag. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AKtoolbox[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:PRODUCT. Unsourced oneline on a Matlab add-on. Kleuske (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One-sentence article that barely eludes speedy deletion. Cannot be merged into Matlab article, because it is from a third party. Notability is certainly a problem. Overall, this looks like the case of SourceForge project advertising itself on Wikipedia. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Matlab Non-notable toolbox with very limited sourcing.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence found to show this meets WP:GNG. gongshow talk 09:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Muhammad Asad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Muhammad Asad's life[edit]

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

This time-line is of no use. No option for merge because we don't usually present bio in that form. These kind of articles are suitable for premiers but not for individuals. Greenbörg (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muhammad Asad; redirects are cheap and that is the obvious target. I don't see a need at Muhammad Asad to have any of this content merged back. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muhammad Asad as ATD and to preserve incoming links; bio article is essentially a "timeline", and a separate article is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cazza[edit]

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

contested prod.Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH ,this company was established in 2016 and best is upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON paid article created by a Sockfarm Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it was my proposal to delete (PROD). Issues include that the article fundamentally depends on crystal ball speculation as to whether this 3D building technique will even be utilized. Press regurgitating the company's own speculative announcements does not substantiate notability. Note that most of the sources closely follow an orchestrated press campaign by Cazza and UAE. Either January-February 2017 following this 2016-12-27 or other like this – even the title of the latter "Cazza to build the first 3D printed Skyscraper in the world" was repeated with minor variation by several sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question if this is known to have been created by a banned user (via sockpuppet), why can't we use WP:G5 to dispose of it? ~Kvng (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure is only to G5 if other GF editors haven't made substantial edits. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly the page creator was blocked per NOTHERE and behaviourally isn't linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaplipa. SmartSE (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand these answers. Too much wikilingo. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail GNG and WP:NCORP. References are based on company announcements and/or quotations and are not intellectually independent, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; 100% promotional with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carolingians descended from Charles Martel[edit]

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

This is somebody's personal exercise in trying to trace all of the supposed descendants of someone famous, but includes whole sections that are dubious, and the only citation is to a primary source that contains almost none of the material shown. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Agricolae (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to separate list status for readability from the original article. Since then it has had a lot of editing, although not a lot of different editors, but nobody has claimed it is factually inaccurate. Do you have any reason to think it is wrong? I note that many of the entries have their own articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's start by evaluating the few relationships that are not supported by the cited source - oh, my bad, almost all of the relationships are unsupported by the cited source. Agricolae (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. The Carolingian dynasty is without a doubt a highly notable group, and writing about them goes beyond genealogy. Any problems with accuracy or inadequate sourcing are surmountable. The title is a little redundant (all Carolingians are descended from Charles Martel, him being the 'Carol' in 'Carolingian'), so if kept I suggest it be moved to List of Carolingians or List of descendants of Charles Martel. – Joe (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is not a list - it is named as if it was a List but the arrangement is that of a genealogy and it is being used to claim specific relationships, some of which are highly speculative. Agricolae (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-standard formated article, that verges on an indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (on second thoughts). The Carolingian family tree is a notable subject. It might have been presented in a different format, but that does not matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (third thought) REname to Carolingian family tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Carolingian family tree, since WP:N and correct name. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. We could use a Carolingian family tree, just not this one. Srnec (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a good candidate for WP:TNT delete; unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I do think the Carolingian dynasty is notable, this is not serving any use as an article, however it could be archived in userspace, or archived in Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Holy Roman Empire task force for reference. Elements of this 'family tree' are used in various articles, and this is a good overview. perhaps it could be used as part of another article like Outline of Carolingian dynasty within the outline article format, for which this could be well suited with modifications. Dysklyver 13:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Saremi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR .Lacks third party sources about the article subject or even his works. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails gng. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition to a redirect being created later on as an {{r with possibilities}}. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzy (musician)[edit]

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

All refs are trivial, blogs or not independent. Nothing reliable and substantial . No evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Muzzy has released 6 EPs on a notable indie label (Monstercat), which should pass criteria 5. Micro (Talk) 12:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since part of the ethics of Monstercat is to provide a platform to allow new artists to release records, the use of that label does not suggest notability. There is no evidence that any of the releases achieved any chart success. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Monstercat is notable as a record label as it meets the GNG Micro (Talk) 01:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have done a guest mix for Radio 1, but the (download only) releases on Monstercat don't constitute two albums on one of the more important independent labels. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. No criterion of WP:NMUSIC satisfied. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monstercat as an alternative to deletion. Artist is only known through this label and currently has a mention there. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any significant coverage in reliable independent sources, so this fails WP:GNG. It has been commented that criterion 5 of WP:NMUSIC may be met by the 6 EP's released on Monstercat, after consideration I do not think this criteria is met. The Monstercat label is relatively close to being self-produced, not relevant industry releases. As none of the EP's charted of generated significant sales, I would say that they did not become relevant and therefore by extension have not contributed to the notability of this article. Dysklyver 13:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy Pastilles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. unsourced Dysklyver 20:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Vichy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what possible way would that improve either the encyclopedia, or Vichy? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I must ask that too. Dysklyver 19:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Vichy Pastilles is a locally-produced product unique to Vichy, and the selective merge target article also includes a mention of it. At the very least, should be redirected as a valid search term, per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have added more referenced info. They may look like sweets but they have played a significant part in French (cultural) history. It was also acquired for a quarter billion a few years ago.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have been around since 1825, and thanks to the hard work of Zigzig20s in expanding, this now easily meets WP:GNG. Another case of WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been almost completely rewritten (see diff) it is now much better than it was previously, and the article now makes it clear that this topic goes beyond being 'just a brand', it has real history and cultural significance - something not asserted in the article when I nominated it. Dysklyver 13:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese Nips[edit]

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

~~fails WP:GNG, non-notable brand.~~ Dysklyver 20:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC) HEY 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cheese cracker. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced there's any reason to merge this with Cheese cracker .... it doesn't seem to be notable in its own right. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are many good sources readily available as anybody can find. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: – 5 point test:

Significant coverage? N I've looked through all 11 pages and cannot see any significant coverage.
Reliable source? Y Can see the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribune. There's probably more.
Multiple sources? Y Definitely.
Secondary sources? Y Some are.
Non-local sources? Y Some are.

However, just the one fail is still enough to not meet the general notability guideline. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please post two links that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability. You have posted a link to Google Search but this does not qualify for the purposes of establishing notability. You have mentioned the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribute but you have not posted links to any references. This Houston Chronicle reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this Chicago Tribune reference is also a mere mention-in-passing (of the product, not the manufacturer) and likewise fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Please read my comment carefully. I'm on your side! J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not merge) as a non-notable food product, a group for which there is no clear WP notability guideline anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a relevant brand of cheese crackers. Aleccat 17:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleccat: relevant does not mean notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalogue of brand names. Dysklyver 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get that and all, but there are sources in this discussion. Stub the article and expand it. Do not be a deletionist. --Aleccat 12:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG: idiotic branding leads to bomb scare, review of new flavors, trade magazine discussion of Cheese Nips' popularity, more review of new flavors, product launch in Middle East, Goldfish crackers vs Cheese Nips lawsuit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PMC: well that's a lot better, propose close re WP:HEY. Dysklyver 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This brand is definitely notable and is probably the best known competitor to Cheez-It. (Either way, I oppose "merge into Cheese cracker" since merging a brand into that page makes no sense. The only viable option I can see in lieu of deletion or keeping is "redirect to List of Kraft brands#Mondelez International".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete It doesn't seem to me that anyone is looking at the references that people keep pointing at. Mostly they are passing references; the rest are uniformly "Cheese Nips are Kraft's version of Cheese-Its." Being able to find them on a store shelf somewhere isn't notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the sources provided may not devote much space to discussing these bad tasting Cheez–It knockoffs, I will contend that the sources argue for the notability of this product by treating it like something the reader already knows about. Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Kraft_brands#Mondelez_International. There's nothing in the current article worth preserving. It's 100% promo despite being a WP:DIRECTORY listing, thus doubly excluded per WP:NOT. Redirect is the best option in this case. Someone wants to develop it down the road? Fine! But since it ended up at AfD, the redirect is the best approach. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourcing found by PMC above, which is enough to satisfy our inclusion requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Statista reports that in 2016, 1.5 million Americans consumed eight or more bags of Cheeze Nips. Since Wikipedia notability is a measure of attention to a topic by the world-at-large, this statistic alone is sufficient as evidence of Wikipedia notability. The counter-hypothesis would be that these 1.5 million Americans bought these crackers without knowing what they were buying. Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, perhaps you should go and read WP:WHYN, and then read the notability policies again as you clearly don't understand them, your definition of notability is actually stated as what it is not! notability is nothing to do with something being famous, it is entirely to do with the presence of multiple reliable independent sources that have substantial coverage of the subject. Dysklyver 18:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is not part of the guideline proper. If you look in the WP:N history, I think you will see that it was rejected ten years ago. There is no such thing as "notability policy", unless you mean WP:V#Notability. The place to start in reading WP:N is the lede and the nutshell, which is what supports my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to tell the relevant people how a large section of the current WP:N guideline was rejected 10 years ago, it is still marked as a current guideline on the main notability ~~policy~~ Guideline page. Neither the lede or the nutshell are part of the guideline either, but you are supposed to use these things to interpret it. Dysklyver 21:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is not a part of the standard, so let's move on. As for the lede and nutshell of WP:N, they are what they are, and they are not there to interpret GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stands now, the sources in the article satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cracker (food). Sandstein 11:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Handi-Snacks[edit]

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

non-notable brand which fails WP:GNG. Dysklyver 20:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cracker (food). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not merge) as a non-notable food product, a group for which there is no clear WP notability guideline anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bd2412 T 02:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a Biskit[edit]

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

non-notable brand name. fails WP:GNG. Dysklyver 21:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Cracker (food), or Nabisco. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This thoroughly bizarre and disgusting idea seems to be notable, based on the volume of this product, lack of any comparable and competing products and the "in a biscuit" notion from it spreading into non-cracker foods and beyond. Just don't ask me to eat one. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far from having no competiors, they have been discountinued in most major markets [4], now only avaiable in the USA. This article is not about a 'notion'. It is about a subsidiary company and food brand of Nabisco, there are literally hundreds of varieties of crackers, these are not special or even high volume. Dysklyver 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no other "meat in a cracker" products like this. But then I'm not looking for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Yet another minor brand line about which there is basically only routine coverage. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nabisco#Brands, where it is mentioned. I have not found enough secondary sourcing to support an independent article, but the page had 2,984 views in the past 30 days. It is obviously a plausible search term and so a redirect is warranted. —Mark viking (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable brand that possesses a unique (via an odd production method) attribute and has attracted enough attention to pass WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirect suggested above would be preferable to deletion, but it would be best to let the article stand as is. The product is clearly well–known, as evidenced by the number of page views, and the sourcing provided in the article brings the article very close to the requirements, if it does not pass them. Lepricavark (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomerang.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, little notability asserted Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NWEB, no indication of notability. Dysklyver 13:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would fail the G11 speedy deletion policy. (G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion) FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ginebra–Meralco rivalry[edit]

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

Not well-established rivalry. Even if it can be said as notable, it is still not worth for article creation. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that two teams are in the same league or play each other often doesn't establish that they have a notable rivalry. None of the sources cited in the article discuss the rivalry between the two teams, per se. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. The article is just a summary of a single series in 2016, which is not a "rivalry" on its own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG without enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that discuss this as a rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tru (elementary school)[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. Only reference is an spreadsheet which does not seem to mention this school (and if it did only provides info such as the location, name, and Zip code which is not enough for WP:N). A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable sources on the school (only bringing up the school's website and school review sites (Great Schools) ). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Deathlibrarian. Dysklyver 14:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - normally, I'd say redirect this to Palo Alto, but this appears to be a brand new school with no track record or indication it's actually going to stick around long enough to build any sourcing. So, it fails WP:ORG and should be deleted. Five years from now, it may rate a redirect; not now. John from Idegon (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere existence does not prove notability for elementary schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Schools are subject to WP:GNG and WP:ORG, and I'm unable to find any reliable sources discussing this school. Pburka (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Sorfina Mohd Aminudin[edit]

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

Fails WP:Figure skating notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for figure skating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Figure skating and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y (Singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and/or WP:NMUSIC. Seems to be in the same boat as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Dae-yeol. Just WP:TOOSOON likely. Only coverage I could find was this and social media chatter. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 04:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 04:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 04:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Dae-yeol (a member of the same group) this individual is not notable enough for an individual article as of yet and fails all critera. Abdotorg (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Apocalypse Now. A Train^talk 11:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Willard[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a fictional character, written entirely as an in-universe bio and offering no real-world context to indicate why he would need a separate article from the existing cast list in the film's article. By comparison, Colonel Kurtz actually contains substantive and reliably sourced information about the character inspiration and Brando's performance -- which is exactly what a fictional character needs to qualify for a standalone article, and exactly what this doesn't have. We don't spin every character off to a standalone bio just because the character list blurb is getting a bit long — we spin a character off to a standalone bio when we can reliably source some context for why a standalone article is warranted. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to "Apocalypse Now" Colonel Kurtz, by comparison, has resonance for being in Conrads Hearts of Darkness, and references to that.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too vague for a redirect, IMO, and non notable fictional character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apocalypse Now, a la Benjamin L. Willard, per WP:ATD as the underlying name is a reasonable redirect. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew S. Johnson[edit]

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

Academic notability Operator873^CONNECT 03:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:Prof#C1 with 2000+ citations in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep with over 200 publications and a book, sees to be worthy of an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel wikipedia needs to appriciate people in science more. We are creating Wiki page for a 17 years old teenage who is playing football in a region league in a random country, why not a wikipedia page for someone who have had a big contribution in scientific fields of climate change, air pollution control and etc. He has five patents in air pollution control only, I guess he deserve to have a wikipedia page. I added some more references for his results. best. Aerospc (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MediaNama[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Lacks in indepth third party references only briefly mention the company Nervegolgi (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Nikhil Pahwa.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a nn web publication; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No opposition signalled to sources found. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triggerman Beat[edit]

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

WP:PROD removed by article creator. My concern was: "An article about one feature of an apparently non-notable single by an apparently non-notable band. The only source relates to the single, and does not mention Triggerman Beat." Narky Blert (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the song "Drag Rap" to which this article refers was speedied as WP:A9 on 2 October 2017. Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG e.g 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Pontificalibus. Pburka (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one reference here, other references needed here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elymentz[edit]

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

Promotional article, all the sources seem to be also promotional. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I didn't find any reason for deletionAmirdaeii (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that the above editor was blocked as a part of a sock farm. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a WP:PAID job. Lots of references, but are any of them reliable? Is there any justification for that page move gimmick, I mean other than trying to avoid the scrutiny of NPP by a hireling who knew his work wouldn't stand up to any real review and wanted to postpone deletion until the check cleared? Furrykiller (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP and WP:SPIP. Suspicious article history too. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. The discussion is a close one, but in the final analysis, there is not a clear consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Pahwa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and none of the references are indepth about the subject.Neither is being a member of the Wi-fi task force set up by the Delhi Government Nervegolgi (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think his work with the savetheinternet.in campaign last year made him notable and warranted a short piece about him on Wired. Article updated.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wired is a short piece and is based on an interview with Pahwa; WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: There are also articles about or centred around him on Forbes, The Guardian, (now linked in the article), Hindustan Times, Frontline, The Verge, etc. Merging MediaNama into his article along with sections on his net neutrality activism, will make this a decent article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think that should be deleted as the resources are very much, so many sources are not available in the search engine, to prove that this page can be kept. Warm Regards- ( User:HappyToHelp talk)

Note that HappytoHelp, a new user, pasted the same message as above at the AfD for Jindal Group. Moreover, the nominator, Nervegolgi's only activity on Wikipedia thus far has been to nominate Nikhil Pahwa and his website MediaNama for deletion.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of indepth sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, a lack of source that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have JPL, HighKing et al actually looked at the sources that Cpt.a.haddock has added to the article? There are in-depth profiles of the subject in reliable sources right there. A Train^talk 11:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the significance and depth of the references in the article show that subject passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani – Goa Campus. if people want to merge, it can be merged from the page history at editorial discretion or with discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spree (festival)[edit]

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

Local festival of little notability. Doesn't pass WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:GNG. Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani – Goa Campus. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk)

I would have proposed a merge, but I see no non-trivial material to merge. Other than mentioning the festival exists, and since when, I don't think there is much to say. --Muhandes (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(contrib) 08:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect: The wording is promotional, full of exhortations about what "you" may do at the event: suitable for a college intranet or brochure but not for an encyclopaedia. Nor is there evidence that this student event is of encyclopaedic notability. The existing coverage in a bullet point at Birla_Institute_of_Technology_and_Science,_Pilani_–_Goa_Campus#Student_life is adequate. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of pornographic subgenres.. appatent consensus. no point in further relisting DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babysitter pornography[edit]

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

This article has no valid reason to exist. It is a dictionary definition which fails WP:NOT. If any mention to this genre of pornography is needed, it can be mentioned on Pornography or restricted to the List of Pornographic sub-genres. Dysklyver 15:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of pornographic subgenres. Doesn't seem to be enough content to merit an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of pornographic subgenres. Does it really merit its own article? I never even heard of it until now. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 11:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Moves can be discussed via WP:RM. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 St. Louis riot[edit]

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

Not a notable event - no in-depth, substantial, non-routine coverage. Single-day civil disturbance resulting in a handful of arrests and no deaths or injuries. Coverage is almost entirely local. At the most, this merits 1-2 lines in Fountain Park, St. Louis or History of St. Louis. Also, the title does not conform to the sources (which do not seem to describe this as a "riot"). Neutrality^talk 16:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to 2015 St. Louis protest. 9 arrests is hardly a riot. I believe there's WP:LASTING impact due to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in Sept of 2017:

"The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Friday that the latest lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court stems from a protest in 2015 after the death of Mansur Ball-Bey. It claims police used tear gas without warning." source.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to 2015 St. Louis protest. Here's my gNews search on "Mansur Ball-Bey" + riot [5]. it does show coverage, including ongoing coverage generated by a lawsuit filed in September 2017 by the ACLU [ http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/aclu-sues-st-louis-police-claiming-abuse-of-protesters-in/article_a617ed5b-40fc-5496-99ac-6e4ca9cb3cb7.html ACLU sues St. Louis police, claiming abuse of protesters in 2015].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that notability is lacking. bd2412 T 04:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis E. Taylor[edit]

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

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer, which offers no evidence of a WP:NAUTHOR pass and no reliable sourcing to get him over WP:GNG. The notability claim here boils down to "he exists", which is not enough in and of itself to get a writer into Wikipedia -- and two of the three sources here are a Q&A interview on a podcast, and a user-generated book review on an unreliable "anybody can write about anything they want to" content-generation community platform. And while the third source, a review in Locus, does count for something toward demonstrating notability, it doesn't carry a GNG pass all by itself as the article's only non-worthless source. I'm also bundling his two books, as neither of them is properly sourced as passing WP:NBOOK either -- both are written as mere plot summaries rather than offering any real-world context for notability, and one relies solely on primary sources like the author's own self-published website and the book's sales page on Amazon, while the other adds only the same sources that aren't adequate in the BLP. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, agree with nominator, neither Taylor nor his books are notable enough for wp articles. Taylor does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable (just the usual amazon, goodreads, author's own site etc.), if one of his books was notable i might suggest a redirect, but apart from the one Locus review here of We Are Legion theres nothing else for WP:NBOOK, the other references at that article is either authors own, publisher, retailer ie. amazon and audible, "anyone can contribute" sites, ditto for For We Are Many (that said, did find this review of We Are Bob by GeekSpeakMagazine, if deemed ok, then that book may just squeak over the line but would be happier with more). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this cat will also need to be removed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep I'm seeing coverage like [6], [7], [8], which seems to be reasonable, if on the light side. I think a bit more exploration is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not nearly enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nomination. reddogsix (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Wise[edit]

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

Lacks WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTABILITY. BJPlaya10 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a major artist, but most certainly not unknown in Canada, especially since he's under The Weeknd's XO label. He's been covered by Noisey three times (here, here, and most recently here); as well as being a topic of a human trafficking investigation covered by VICE and Billboard already in the article. Limmidy (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - stub does not equal notability. Also, see last keep comment. Aleccat 23:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Limmidy and additional coverage at reputable publications like Exclaim and The Source. gongshow talk 08:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 04:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rezon (Arcade game)[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG. Japanese article is no better, as it is unreferenced. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. One of the two "sources" was just a link to the game's soundtrack on YouTube, which stated it was "exceptionally poor". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. NitinMlk has shown there are more than enough sources to indicate this topic is notable. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jindal Group[edit]

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

Sources for this topic consists only of routine business announcements (acquisitions, asset sales, funding, investments, etc.), company websites, and materials derived from public relations. No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails GNG, CORPDEPTH, and ORGIND. Also, notability is not inherent (ORGSIG) and not inherited (INHERITORG). Article creation was 2009 so it has had plenty of time to demonstrate notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think that should be deleted as the resources are very much, so many sources are not available in the search engine, to prove that this page can be kept. Warm Regards- ( User:HappyToHelp talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyToHelp (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user first !voted at Nikhil Pahwa AfD & three minutes later they copy-pasted that !vote here. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In 2006 & 2007, the O.P. Jindal group was 6th & 4th respectively among the top business groups of India. In 2016, it slipped to 12th spot, but it is still among the top business groups of the country. As of now, the group's net worth is $7.4 billion & it was $10.9 billion in 2012. A quick search found some sort of sources, e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. Also, there are many books which discuss them – [16]. And this is for Daily Mail lovers. ;) Jokes aside, it isn't a typical corporate spam & should be examined carefully. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as a major business group with loads of coverage in reliable book sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alien (literary concept)[edit]

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

Not finding many sources to support the use of this term to describe this subject. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be predominantly WP:OR and no clear sources are available._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR/dictionary definition. In current form unclear and poorly unsourced, and fails to establish notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR per the above: nothing to merge, and nowhere to merge it to. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is that the article needs work but no one has been swayed by the nominator to support deletion. A Train^talk 11:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Rui[edit]

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

The entire content of this article is already found entirely at Castration#Vietnam, Eunuch#L.C3.AA_Dynasty, and Lê_Thánh_Tông#Relations_with_the_Ming_dynasty and is therefore a violation of WP:Content forking and it doesn't meet WP:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, "Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies" and "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." The event is a small sub-section of the article eunuch and not notable for its own article so how can the person be as notable? The second paragraph also has nothing to do with the article topic and is COATRACK. The subject of the article fails WP:GNG to stand on its own as an article since its only mentioned in a grand total of three English language sources and all the content here is available on other Wikipedia articles. Most of the article content has nothing to do with Wu Rui. Only two of the English language sources are secondary sources. One is a primary source translation and the fourth English language source does not mention the subject of the article directly. If all the off topic material was deleted the article would be a stub of one sentence or one paragraph. Zathe (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course most of the article should be removed as belonging in general articles about castration and eunuchs, but that doesn't take away Wu Rui's notability. Sources in Vietnamese or Chinese are just as valid as sources in English for establishing notability, and, even in English, I've found this book with significant coverage in addition to the ones cited in the article. And, incidentally, the article hasn't been tagged with an AfD template. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is a violation of WP:Content forking. The article was copy pasted from eunuch and castration and none of the content would be missing if it was deleted. The book you pulled up was already cited in the article and Wu Rui is only mentioned briefly on two pages of the book in actual content. The other two page mentions are in the reference notss and index. That isn't significant coverage. None of the Vietnamese sources mention Wu Rui and the Chinese sources are only two. A primary source and its duplicates and one Chinese article and its duplicates which were copied on several websites. Run the text through a translator or look at them yourselves. They are duplicates of the same reference.Zathe (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wu Rui is not "only mentioned briefly on two pages of the book in actual content". The first 600 or so words of chapter 5 are all about him. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first 600 words of chapter 5 is two pages. The book is a compilation of essays by different authors in each chapter on the history of the border between China and Vietnam and not even on the person whom the article is about. So Wu Rui gets a mention on the article on Eunuch#L.C3.AA_Dynasty where he is already mentioned and cited. The entire article is a big content fork and nothing is lost by deletion. Why is the exact same content duplicated on several articles over again? And actually the third English source is just a translation of the Chinese primary language source. So Wu Rui is mentioned briefly on one page of one book, two pages of another book, and a primary source. It suffices for a paragraph on an article like eunuch but it isn't enough for its own article see WP:notability. Explain the value of having content on a non-notable minor topic from a bigger article like eunuch forked and duplicated exactly onto its own page? Then users can split dozens of major articles into small duplicates for each section that way and create thousands of content forks.Zathe (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Notability: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Two pages about the subject in a book is significant coverage even though the main topic of the chapter is not Wu Rui. I agree that much of the current content of the article doesn't belong there because it is not specifically about Wu, but we still have enough coverage of him in reliable sources. In fact, for a 15th century Chinese subject who came to prominence in Vietnam, it is quite exceptional for this much coverage to be available in English. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Rui is only mentioned in two academic secondary sources in a total of three pages. No other academic secondary source mentions him. The article doesn't meet guidelines for WP:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event and the entire content even about Wu Rui is already on Eunuch#L.C3.AA_Dynasty. He wasn't prominent in Vietnam because there are no Vietnamese sources that mention him. Only one Chinese primary source briefly mentions him in a short paragraph entry and two English secondary source reference that primary source for a total of three pages of content in books which are about border history.Zathe (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you said that already and I moved the discussion along by showing that the definition of significant coverage in our notability guidelines does not require Wu to be the main topic of the books or even the chapters. Please don't just repeat what has already been refuted as grounds for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The event is not notable for even its own article. The event is a sub section Eunuch#L.C3.AA_Dynasty of the eunuch article. And the entire content of that sub section of eunuch was duplicated exactly into its own article on the person affected by the event. That section mentioned 100 other people got castrated in the same circumstances as Wu Rui but their names aren't recorded. If their names were recorded, would you consider it legitimate to create 100 different stub articles on each person duplicating the exact same text found at Eunuch#L.C3.AA_Dynasty? That's literally the only difference. Wu Rui's name was recorded while the 100 other names are unknown. A legitimate article to create would be one called History of the China Vietnam borders where this information can be placed. Not this article on a single person.Zathe (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of our notability guidelines is that we cover topics that are recorded and written about in reliable secondary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources mentioned those 100 people. We don't have an article called 100 unknown people or 100 different articles of unknown number one, unknown number two until unknown number one hundred. The subject of those two secondary sources is border history and three pages briefly mentions this event including this person which happened on the ocean borders. The event and person are not notable for their own articles. Otherwise someone could create an article called anonymous 100 people castrated and duplicate the same content. This is pointless WP:Content forking and duplicating the same content. An entire section of an article Eunuch#L.C3.AA_Dynasty was basically forked under an article of a single person involved in these events.Zathe (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the accident of history, as with many other subjects from half a millennium ago, is that we have significant coverage in independent reliable sources about Wu Rui, but not about those others. That means that we can have an article about Wu but not the others. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three pages mentioning a person in two books about border history isn't notable and isn't significant coverage. Both secondary sources are soured to a one paragraph entry in a primary source which has hundreds of other entries and mention hundreds of other individuals. There are other individuals mentioned on the same two books and primary source who are equally not as notable. If this was an article about the history of the China Vietnam border I wouldn't nominate for deletion. But this is about a non notable individual originally mentioned in a single paragraph. Read Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event It says The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. There is no further coverage of this individual other than the two secondary sources about the event.Zathe (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

who are you? You come out of nowhere to advocate for deletion.100.35.73.190 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. It may well be that this editor has been editing without logging in, as we do, but needed to create a userid in order to be able to create the deletion discussion page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a person.Zathe (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are you the same person who nominated Otherkin for deletion? 100.35.73.190 (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not.Zathe (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please take personal/conduct issues elsewhere and concentrate here on whether we should have, according to our policies and guidelines, an article about Wu Rui? This whole thread is a distraction from the main issue, to which Zathe's identity is just as irrelevant as the editor's at 100.35.73.190 or mine. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep -- I observe that there is an article in another language, presumably Vietnamese. While that article exists, I do not see why the English WP should not have an article. We seem to have an article with a lot of citations, though not English language ones. The fact that the content is also in a general article on Eunuchs is neither here nor there: it may be that the general article is too long and the content needs summarising there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peterkingiron Look closely at the Vietnamese article. Its a shorter duplicate of the English article created by one of the same editors of the English article and it was created after the English article and is a translation of it. It uses the same sources as the English article including the English books. I count four sources on that article. The two English secondary sources, one English primary source translation of the Chinese primary source and the Chinese primary source. There are no Vietnamese sources which mention Wu Rui. And its a one sentenced stub now. Eunuch isn't the only article where the same content appears. It appears on castration and Lê Thánh Tông. Reconsider your vote.Zathe (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered. The answer that an article could be merged to a general one where he is an example may seen attractive, but it is a destructive solution. Though I cannot read them, there are enough citations to remove objections, other than that the person might be NN, a matter on which I am not qualified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peterkingiron Take my word, there are only two relevant citations out of four on the Vietnamese article. The two English language secondary sources in the books are the only relevant citations because they are the only secondary sources. One of the books mentions his story in one paragraph and the other in four sentences. The other two citations are the primary source in English and Chinese which those two secondary sources cited. Everything else is not a secondary source and are duplicates of each other. The fifth citation in the Vietnamese wikipedia has nothing to do with Wu Rui but with the other 100 people. There is no Vietnamese source which mentions him. I trimmed the English article on Wu Rui of everything that was not relevant so there are three English citations which are the two secondary sources and the one primary source translation. This fits in at Lê_Thánh_Tông#Relations_with_the_Ming_dynasty because the two secondary sources are talking about ocean border policy in his rule so everything on the Wu Rui article is relevant to Lê Thánh Tông.Zathe (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass GNG. Is not a content fork - much longer than the linked articles - and this seems to be more of an issue in the linked articles than here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Struck - based on very poor reading of the apparently long and sourced article on my part.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz Look at the linked articles again. There is no way Wu Rui is longer than Castration#Vietnam, and Eunuch#Vietnam Eunuch#L.C3.AA_Dynasty. Every single word on Wu Rui was copied from those articles and later other editors did small modifications. It is very much a content fork. Its an issue over here, not in the linked articles, because over half of the article Wu Rui is not about Wu Rui but about other people getting castrated and castration in general. Voters here need to read and look closely at the articles.Zathe (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. You are correct. It isn't an exact copy (which fooled me) - but yes. And the Wu Rui article does contain alot of irrelevant refs and alot of copied content. I was however able to find this - [17] - which treats Rui to a full 2 page account (including several details not in this article). And there probably is more in Chinese. I suspect there are enough sources to make an article on Rui specifically (so my base !vote would be a weak keep), but given the poor state of the article (In need of a massive trim + addition of info specific to Rui) - I'm Neutral unless someone picks up the gauntlet for WP:HEY on this one.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz There is only one source in Chinese. The original Chinese primary source is one paragraph in an entry of the Ming Shilu annals and that is where the two English language secondary sources cite the information from. The 2 pages in the book you found were cited by the article and are the exact same information which is found in the entry of the annals. What the book you cited did is literally just stretching that one paragraph over two pages with some other information and analysis mixed in. Anyone can stretch one paragraph found in a primary sources into two pages by adding fluff and analysis.Zathe (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true stretching primary sources is possible, when this is done by what apppears to be secondary RS some 500+ years later does seem to lend notability.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that Wikipedia is based on secondary sources rather than primary. Much of our coverage of the ancient and mediaeval worlds (sorry to use eurocentric terms but I'm not so sure about how East and South-East Asian history is divided up) is based on very few primary sources, but we rely on secondary sources that analyse those primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz User:Smmurphy the topic and context of the books are on the history of the border region between China and Vietnam. This was one incident that happened in the border region out of many and the reason it is briefly mentioned on one and two pages in those books is because its related to the border. If someone created an article on the border or history of the border it would be relevant information to put there. But on its own the individual is not notable. There are hundreds of other people mentioned in the same secondary sources and primary source.Zathe (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see hundreds of other people covered in the same way in the secondary sources, but if there are any they also have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so pass notability guidelines. What are their names? Where is the two pages of secondary source coverage for any of them? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The hundred other people are literally mentioned on the same page. Other incidents involving other people in the same border reginare mentioned in the other secondary source Zathe (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned without names and with less than a sentence between them. The coverage is in no way comparable to that of Wu Rui. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two page count for the first book with Wu Rui is misleading. His story is mentioned in basically one paragraph and further mentions of him are just speculation in relation to border policies of the two countries. The entire count is one paragraph in one book and four sentences sentence in another book. That's pushing the grounds on coverage and notability. This incident could be mentioned in a single paragraph on border history between China and Vietnam or Lê Thánh Tông and nothing further is necessary.Zathe (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He has an entry in the collection of Ming empirical annals, Ming Shilu (Geoff Wade, translator, Southeast Asia in the Ming Shi-lu: an open access resource, Singapore: Asia Research Institute and the Singapore E-Press, National University of Singapore, http://epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/reign/hong-zhi/year-12-month-8-day-6, accessed October 17, 2017) which is the basis of most (all?) of our information about him. That said, I would say that interest in fairly ongoing and the annals provide at least two data points about his life/career beyond his capture and castration and which are not really worth merging anywhere else, but do, I think, give us enough for a stub about Wu Rui suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I am not competent in this area to do a full HEY, but I would suggest that from the life section, the first, forth, and fifth (last) paragraph be cut and the rest be cleaned up a bit. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smmurphy There is no need for a merge or article because the entire content of the article including all the details about Wu Rui's life is already on Castration#Vietnam, Eunuch#L.C3.AA_Dynasty, and Lê_Thánh_Tông#Relations_with_the_Ming_dynasty. There is literally no information lost by deleting the article. It would be a pointless stub forking and restating what is already on those three articles.Zathe (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But specific information about one person does not belong in such general articles. The pointless thing is the inclusion of details about Wu Rui in those other articles: the fact that it appears in three other articles makes that point. Details about Wu should appear here, and this should be linked by those articles rather than have the same information three times. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not clear why Rui is given more than a passing mention in any of those articles, and think he could probably be removed from them (I don't think many other members of Category:Ming dynasty eunuchs are mentioned in those articles). I don't see why the article is a POVFork, and it isn't clear that the article is really a fork, it was added to those two of those three pages (Lê_Thánh_Tông and Eunuch) on April 2 and 3, 2013[18],[19] by the creator of this page, User:Lan Thoa, and the third page (Castration) a few months later[20]. This article was created April 3, 2013. So to me, it seems that the user thought this subject was an important enough part of Lê_Thánh_Tông, Castration, and Eunuch that it should be discussed on those three pages as well as having its own article. My !vote is that the subject is suitable to have its own article, but that it should be mentioned only in passing if at all in the other three pages. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All criteria matched, I see no reason to delete. A notable eunuch in history.Tart (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tart Three pages in two secondary sources on border history in notable? Keep in mind this article would be a stub of one sentence or one paragraph at most if all the off topic material was deleted.Zathe (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no prohibition of stubs, and, even so, there's more content about Wu himself in the secondary sources that can be added to the article. Why do you prefer to keep this content in three separate articles rather than in just one place? You seem to keep repeating your original opinion rather than replying to other editors by explaining why that would be a better outcome. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more in the secondary sources about him that isn't in the article already. Everything that is mentioned about him fits in the other articles and there is no need for a stub repeating them word for word.Zathe (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peterkingiron User:Icewhiz User:Smmurphy User:Tart I deleted everything in Wu Rui that's not related to the topic from the article. All of the stub could still fit into Lê_Thánh_Tông#Relations_with_the_Ming_dynasty, Castration#Vietnam, and Eunuch#L.C3.AA_Dynasty. If it's off topic on eunuch and castration it could still be entirely hosted at Lê_Thánh_Tông#Relations_with_the_Ming_dynasty and the stub wouldn't need to exist.Zathe (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, once again, why does content about Wu Rui belong in an article about Lê Thánh Tông? To include this there, rather than just make a link to this article, is WP:UNDUE weight. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because both secondary sources are about border history between China and Vietnam when Lê Thánh Tông was ruling? The second source is specific about his border policies and this incident with Wu Rui is only mentioned in the context of border policy when he was ruling. Everything in the Wu Rui article is mentioned in the secondary sources in that context of the border on the ocean.Zathe (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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