Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 October	17 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) 18:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conklin Guitars[edit]

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

I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV of this company. An online search yields a couple of interviews with the company's founder, but I can't find enough WP:RS from which we could reasonably write an encyclopedia article. Marquardtika (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and failing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 17:46, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hamilton-Guarino[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill person. Previously speedily deleted. Edwardx (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable author lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of significant coverage of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources to support notability are just not out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have sufficient significant coverage to show notability. Fails SIGCOV and NAUTHOR. Antonioatrylia (talk) 07:30, 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 speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT, invalid deletion rationale. If a history merge is desired, this is not the way to accomplish it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth LaPensée[edit]

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

Delete this page to make room for draftspace version, which is better organized and wikified. A merge of the two is also possible. Ham tech person 21:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Procedural, the need for a histmerge with a draft is not a proper deletion rationale. -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 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) 18:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery David[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable producer. He's the father and apparently the manager of the kids in Echosmith, but notability is not inherited, even in reverse. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the best I found is this Billboard article about his children's band, but that's not enough to establish that Jeffery David is himself notable. Huon (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any successful producer will manage a number of major acts, but that in itself doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article about them; I have searched for additional sources but found nothing that helps demonstrate notability for this person. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much to find in sourcing for this subject. Notability is not inherited. Antonioatrylia (talk) 07:37, 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 delete. With the caveat that a rewritten version (such as one employing the sources proffered by Mark viking) is not disallowed unless it's similarly opinionated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in chemistry[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTADVICE and WP:NOTESSAY. Appears to be synthesis. DrStrauss talk 20:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete the topic looks as as if it might be notable, however there is no content here that is worth keeping. It reads too much like an essay or review. If it is totally rewritten then reconsider. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. inadequately sourced editorializing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The topic is undoubtedly notable with books on the subject like Hippe, Z. (2013). Artificial Intelligence in Chemistry: Structure Elucidation and Simulation of Organic Reactions. Elsevier. ISBN 9781483291673.. But the current article is full of synthesis and looks like a WP:COATRACK for the Wiley ChemPlanner product. Unless there is a total rewrite to become an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources, best to delete this. --Mark viking (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - disguised product promotion Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like an essay. While artificial intelligence definitely has many applications, do we really require individual articles for each topic?--DreamLinker (talk) 17:24, 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) 18:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Warner Bros. 50 Cartoon Collection: Looney Tunes[edit]

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

Looney Tunes is undoubtedly notable. Is this particular box set release edition notable? A source search would suggest not. DrStrauss talk 20:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the notability of Looney Tunes cartoons is not inherited by every subset of them which is offered for sale, unless there is the quantity and quality of coverage needed to satisfy notability. Some reissues are in fact notable and widely covered, but is this one? Edison (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google shows this set for sale at a number of retailers; however, it reveals no coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. gongshow talk 21:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no claim to notability; it fails WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 17:48, 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 speedy delete. Article has been deleted per WP:A9. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 12:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Beauty[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Would PROD but as it's new it will just go to AFD anyway. DrStrauss talk 20:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DrStrauss you could have nominated the article for speedy deletion as another editor did. If the recording was by a non-notable artist without an article, that is grounds for a speedy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 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) 18:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Ahmad Khalid Shaheed[edit]

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

Was deprodded a long while ago, because maybe there was the slightest chance of the existence of native-language sources. Well, apart from WP mirrors, I am unable to find anything for زبیر احمد خالد شہید. The single source in the article is a book review, telling among others that Zubair Khalid is a character in said book. While the book may be based on true accounts, it is still a work of fiction and I would not be surprised if Khalid was (partially) made up. In any case, he does not look like a notable WP:SOLDIER. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a claim of notability. This reads like hagiography to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER and didn't live to acquire WP:GNG.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding anything relevant in any language either, delete per nom. Dysklyver 15:03, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Howes[edit]

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

This person has not attracted sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. The article is somewhat promotional and should be tagged and/or edited for that. It should be considered to be a combo article about Nancy Howes and about KnowYourself.com company, and it should be edited to more explicitly cover the company. I am not too confident in my expertise in AFDs about persons and businesses, but doesn't Parent's Choice award/recognition for a product coulnt as something significant? --do ncr am 23:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: We need several independent references which discuss her in depth for there to be an article about her. That award doesn't count for anything - are you suggesting that we should have an article about every business-owner whose products have received it? SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article with no clear indicaitions of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO .Her awards are not notable neither is her company and notability is not inherited based on her husband Tim Howes. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Written as if it is her résumé.Acnetj (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Additionally, written by SPA whose only substantial edit was creating this page. Agricola44 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is an awful promotional article that amounts to a professional bio. The sources are of similar quality. Accordingly, the notability requirements (for distributed in-depth sources in reliable publications) is not met.96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly of no value to the encyclopedia and not notable. Dysklyver 15:05, 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 delete. No consensus on a redirect Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yorke Fryer[edit]

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

I don't believe WP:ENT is met. The only significant role is in a TV series on BYUtv. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is notable. Dysklyver 23:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extinct (2017 TV series), the series in which this person is a regular cast member. I'm not finding sufficient coverage to warrant a standalone article at this time. gongshow talk 21:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:ACTOR; WP:TOOSOON. The series that he's part is runs on a Uni network by BYUtv; I don't think this is enough even for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note See here. Mjbmr (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and K.e.coffman. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for even a redirect. Ifnord (talk) 17:51, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsman Security[edit]

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

Non-notable Pakistani cybersecurity company. The sources provided (at least those not behind a $2000 paywall) are completely lacking in WP:CORPDEPTH, providing only brief mentions. I came across this while hunting down linkspam for tier3.pk, which is linked in this article and I cannot verify that the domain is related to the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsman Security is nothing to do with pakistan or tier3.pk - It is an australian cyber security software company and was covered as recently in Forrester Research Security Analytics Wave (2017) and the Vendor Landscape (2016) - these are gated content (paywalled on Forrester, but available for free from several vendors sites) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only1weasel (talk • contribs) 10:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bulk of the article talks about the general line of business, not the company. In particular their claim to have invented Behavioural Anomaly detection seems not to be supported by the literature DGG ( talk ) 13:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tagged since 2013, no indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NCORP. Antonioatrylia (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to passing WP:NCORP standards. Dysklyver 15:07, 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 delete. Consensus is that this page does not meet inclusion guidelines. The work Dereliction of Duty however might so if it gets a page this can be redirected to the work's page; if someone needs the history of the bio, ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Patterson[edit]

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

no indication this person meets any notability standard. John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless he's promoted posthumously to brigadier general; then... well, never mind.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ The correct criteria here is WP:AUTHOR (or WP:Talking head / activist / etc.). He does not pass WP:SOLDIER - however he's not far (and this does contribute to notability). I don't see the requsite required sourcing in the article or in my BEFORE - though I'm amendable to change my !vote if someone does a HEY.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Modified below.[reply]
~~Keep~~ I am seeing sources. Daily Caller: 8 questions with ‘Conduct Unbecoming’ author Buzz Patterson. His book Dereliciton of Duty appeared on the New York Times bestseller list for many weeks between April and July 2003. Also this article Conservative Authors Sue Publisher New York Times 2007. A proquest archive search turned up this: Buzz Another book slams Clinton, George Rush and Joanna Molloy. San Antonio Express-News; San Antonio, Tex. 20 Mar 2003: 02F. (full text not available). His Deriliction of Duty appears to have gotten enough book reviews to pass WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you will add the best seller list and a review to the article, I'll be glad to withdraw this. John from Idegon (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN User:John from Idegon, User:Icewhiz. As you suggested, I added 2 book reviews in reputable places; sourced the New York Times bestseller; added another article, sourced a couple of facts; removed some advertising and unsourced text; tagged some bits for sources. Article isn't much, but I think it now passes the notability bar. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I see how what you added supports notability for Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security (would support WP:NBOOK(1)). For Patterson, are you claiming WP:AUTHOR(3)? GNG? Or something else? Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, frankly. He looks pretty minor, actually pretty fringe in his political views. And yet there have been very occassional minor coverage of his minor doings for years On Hardball, Patterson repeated dubious smear of Clinton, despite his changing story. Mostly, however, there is a book, Dereliction of Duty, described by the Wall Street Journal as an "anti-Clinton book." It got at least 2 reviews in mainstream places: Weekly Standard and Armed Forces & Society, he got to promote it on C-Span [1], gets cited by other Clinton hating writers, and by haters of Clinton haters like Slate (magazine) here and spent four months on the New York Times bestseller list. It sort of all seems to add up to to much to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could possibly renam/merge the Patterson article to Dereliciton of Duty - which I agree is notable. But for Patterson to be notable we need to show GNG of himself or that he was the author a few books that are notable - if all he is notable for is the claims vs. Clinton in Dereliciton of Duty (regurgitated a few times) - it really mainly supports the book.Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant!E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security, a page to be created for the purpose. Note that when I went to check what links here, I discovered that this page itself is an old redirect from Dereliction of Duty (2003 book). As far as I can find, all coverage of Patterson in WP:RS is related ot this book and the accusations he flings at President Clinton in this book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Rename (selective) to Dereliction of Duty (2003 book) or Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security. (Note Dereliction of Duty (1997 book) is entirely separate).Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2027 ICC Cricket World Cup[edit]

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

PROD contested by nominator, although I disagree with their rationale. Way too soon, the nominator has even said on their talkpage discussion to me here that "details for it will begin to come within 600 days." That's 2 years away. In 2 years, we may have enough information about e.g. some countries actually bidding, but at current we have a couple of articles speculating that some countries may bid for it. Until there's confirmed, solid, definite information, this article is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. The article only contains speculation about the host selection process. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The main focus to say 600 days was until then 2019 world cup will have been finished. In real details can appear at any time, not necessarily 2 years latter. I shall keep this article updated with newly available information if it is kept. Other alternative may be to redirect it to Cricket World Cup, until the details appear. Don'twasteTime (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing remotely announced by the ICC, and this is just a rumour of where it could be held, if indeed it happens at all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it per WP:CRYSTAL as we don't predict about future events. Greenbörg (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the event is 10 years away. No details are confirmed, and anything can happen until then. Mar4d (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As people have said, it is way too soon for this to be created. Matt294069 is coming 10:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too far in advance. A redirect would likely be deleted on the grounds that it's too far ahead as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Until the actual bidding process to decide the host nation begins, this has no place here. – Pee Jay 08:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too speculative ("we're ready"?) and the links are to a message board, and a think piece from 2014. 110.33.64.175 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball, this is way off in the future, it's not a guarantee that it will happen, we may be invaded by martians or have a nuclear war and go extinct in the meantime. (but seriously what if the date was changed to 2028 or the world cricket scene was restructured and the ICC is renamed to the IIC?) we don't have articles on event in the future or good reasons. Dysklyver 15:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 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 draftify. As a note regarding "when to move", I think the best time would be either 1 January 2018 or when more than 3/4 of the links currently present have actually turned blue. Otherwise, there's not much point in having this page. In the meantime, it will be redirected to 2010s in music. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in music[edit]

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

This is about something that will happen in the future, thus meaning that this violates WP:NOTFUTURE. Also, since it is in the future, we cannot verify anything. Thus, it should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 17:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom. Further, the article is entirely void of any useful content. There are plenty of redlinks and empty sections, though. 'Placeholders' do not belong on WP. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Don't Delete This Article save it. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify or redirect to 2010s in music. Clear case of WP:BALL. AdA&D 01:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of a series, 2018 is three months away, music recorded now has release dates in 2018 and tour dates are set a year in advance. --RAN (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of a series. Knuand (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I Agree keep this article because 2018 is almost 2 months away. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify -- currently has no reason to be in mainspace. Move it back when there is a nontrivial amount of non-redlinks or content. —Kusma (t·c) 09:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete this Article please save it. It has to be part of a series. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or ~~delete~~ - As 2018 is only three months from now, I think moving it to draftspace would be a good idea. ~~Article violates WP:NOTFUTURE, so deletion is another option if moving it to draft-space isn’t feasible.~~ –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I Agree November 2017 is just around the corner 2018 in soon to be 2 months away. Please keep this article. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clear things up, I am currently not opposed to draftifying, so long as it is not in the mainspace before New Years Day (UTC time, of course). RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Think This Discussion has Ended so I Think By Monday This Article will be kept. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and move to Mainspace on or after Jan 1st 2018 It should be worked on to include the years releases at that point. Dysklyver 15:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although it needs editing - I don't like the premise behind this article as it currently reads. I don't think album or DVD releases or planned tours fall under WP:NOTFUTURE as long as its clear that those dates are proposed and not set in stone. For example, knowing the Rolling Stones are going on tour in March is no less notable on Dec. 31 than January 1. And we do have List of 2018 albums, which to me is perfectly fine. Knowing what we have to look forward to is convenient. The LA Times and NY Times have seasonal preview sections for the arts. All good and notable. What bothers me instead is the structure of this article, and the assumptions made by the template. Certain countries and certain genres are listed, whether they have articles or not. Who gets to decide that there should be these 28 countries and these 13 genres? Is the quest to communicate knowledge just limited to filling in the red blanks, or do we want to approach music with an open mind? I'd much prefer to see the article start somewhat blank, and build organically as music is recorded and released. My recommended edits are to remove everything that is redlinked - that does violate WP:NOTFUTURE. Also, the IP voting 5 times in this AfD and proclaiming that he's found consensus also rubs me a bit the wrong way, but I'm still going with keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - currently shouldn't be in mainspace as it consists mostly of placeholders. PhilKnight (talk) 01:14, 24 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) 18:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington National Bank[edit]

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

The article is not particullarly encyclopedic and remains unreferenced and also does not maintain an impartial tone, it does not have any third party evidence for this bank either. Theprussian (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, local, recent, fails WP:NCOMPANY -> WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tagged for 7 years, still no indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 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. Looks like we don't have good enough evidence of notability here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Tormey III[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer lacking independent, non-trivial, in-depth support. References are quotes or single line mentions. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - The lawyer (JJT III) is not particularly notable but occasionally shows up in news and other searches. An entry would disambiguate from JJT jr, (the father of JJT III), who is a noted actor and dancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.57.82 (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a reason retain the article. It still lacks notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The person seems to be more notable than Anita C. Hill (The minister/realtor). Who not only has a wiki page, but is used as an example for disambiguating pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.57.82 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~Far from it. It appears you do not understand Wikipedia based notability.~~ Sorry I thought you were referring to Anita Hill. Regardless, the article you are referring to has no bearing on this AfD. It is possible that article should be nominated for deletion as well, feel free to do so if you are believe this to be the case. reddogsix (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. The argument seems to be, he's a lawyer, and he's had some cases where his name gets mentioned in a news paper, as happens with pretty much every litigator. Plus, his dad was an actor/dancer. But none of this adds up to notability. TJRC (talk) 01:33, 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 no consensus. Subject passes NFOOTY but I acknowledge issues around wider GNG noted. Historic AfD arguments have shown consensus that young players still involved in NFOOTY passing competitions are notable despite low numbers of appearance as it is presumed they will make further FPL appearances. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inri Manzo[edit]

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

Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league and who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article satisfies WP:FOOTBALL because he has played in Liga MX, however all sources indicate that he has never played in Liga MX, but rather has made 2 substitute appearances in the initial phase of the Copa MX - i.e., not a fully-pro league. Even if someone believes that the cameos in the cup competition are equivalent to playing in the league (a dubious claim in my view), the only online coverage of this player is a handful of routine match reports, a mention of him being let go by Veracruz, and an announcement of his signing for a semi-pro club (Orizaba). Jogurney (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jogurney (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:FOOTY .He has played in the Copa MX for Veracruz against Monterrey when the both clubs for playing Liga MX a fully professional league as per this .Now the subject is only 26 years and is currently playing for Veracruz in Copa MX hence see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He left Veracruz in 2016, and plays for semi-pro Orizaba - most 26 year old players don't revive their careers after dropping out of professional football, and it seems like we would be applying WP:CRYSTAL to assume he will make further appearances in Copa MX (or an actual fully-pro league). I agree that he made two cameos in the Copa MX (initial phase), which doesn't get significant coverage unlike Liga MX or even Ascenso MX. That a dubious notability claim in my view. Jogurney (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:As per Soccerway profile as I type he is listed as Veracruz player now even he is playing Orizaba .Now if he was injured or retired it would be different but he is 26 years and actively playing hence would not normally agree to deletion any sportsman who meets WP:NSPORT and is actively playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you are correct. This article indicates that Manzo left Orizaba (due to age restrictions) at the end of May 2017 - and while unclear, he may have returned to Veracruz in some capacity. I'll see if there is anything which confirms he is in Veracruz's future plans. Jogurney (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are no mentions of him on Veracruz's official website since late 2016, and he is not listed in the equipo. Perhaps he is playing for another affiliated club, but it seems more likely the club has cut ties with him (as they would have when he moved to Orizaba in 2016). Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence in article he ever played in a match between full pro teams.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert the information is provided just above. Read Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 08:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure there is much to improve for a footballer who has only played 51 minutes of football in the Copa MX a few years ago. This is a case where an article so narrowly passes the bright line of NFOOTBALL, that it isn't reasonable to assume notability or future compliance with the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the article "needs improvement", then do it. Find the sources, expand the article, make it pass the notability requirements, and turn this into encyclopedic content and not just another stub. I'm not a fan of adding biographies that will can never reach an encyclopedic level. In this case in particular, the amount of sources to back up this player are just not there. This is a non-notable football profile. MX (✉ • ✎) 02:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination statement is right on the money I think. With only 51 minutes across 2 substitute appearances in a cup competition that has amateur teams as well, the "presumption" of notability on the basis that his two games were between 2 professional teams is tenuous even if that is technically meeting NFOOTBALL. Given that he now plays in a non pro league and not generating in depth coverage, this subject fails WP:GNG. ClubOranje^T 10:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the bright line in NFOOTY presumes there is enough significant coverage to satisfy GNG. This presumption does not seem to apply to this subject due to lack of experience and time of play at the appropriate level, as well a presumably notable level. A sports biography that has no chance of expansion because the subject has dropped below the radar of significant coverage is not the intent behind covering subjects on Wikipedia. We are not a repository for indiscriminate information. As stated above: If the article "needs improvement", then do it. Find the sources, expand the article, make it pass the notability requirements, and turn this into encyclopedic content... ---Steve Quinn (talk)

Comment SNGs exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 26 years old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to indicate this person is likely to play in fully professional leagues. And presumption of notability based on minutes played for Veracruz in a cup tournament is dubious, especially if he is currently playing below the professional level - meaning the subject fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. If it were firmly established that the next part of his career would be in the pros then that would be different. So, as stated above, WP:CRYSTAL applies as does WP:IINFO due to WP:TOOSOON. If he starts generating enough acceptable coverage to satisfy GNG then recreate or resurrect this article. Also, as a biography of a living person, more reliable sourcing should be available for a Wikipedia article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been a truly interesting discussion so far, but at the moment I think there are equally valid arguments for closing as delete or as no consensus, so let's have another week to get some more viewpoints.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz is topic banned from the Wikipedia namespace and therefore has no standing to comment here. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL and GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as you are the first editor to suggest the article meets the GNG, would you please provide more detail on why you think it does? I've searched online and don't believe it could (and believe the article doesn't in its current state). Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow BabbaQ (pinging) to answer to the question posed today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. AFD is not cleanup. The current state of the article is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man argument - nobody has suggested the article's current state is grounds for deletion. However, as I stated above, it appears there are no sources available to improve or expand the article. Jogurney (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is sourced with WP:RS and there is no WP:DEADLINE it will expand in due course and further the subject is 26 years and is playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as the page stands, it's an easy delete, no mentions of notability and barely formatted. If it gets expanded a bit, with proper formatting, I don't see a problem with keeping since he passes the bare minimum for notability.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:NFOOTY, there is rs in the article, its crystal ball to prejudge the rest of his career and the state of the article is not relevant Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a longstanding consensus of viewing such minimal play in a fully-pro league (or in this case a cup competition) as not actually satisfying NFOOTBALL unless it's clear that GNG can be satisfied (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter Soomer). We are not pre-judging his career but rather noting the facts - he has never appeared in a fully-pro league (just a cup) and has spent the last few years with semi-pro clubs. Jogurney (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it seems absurd to me that editors argue to keep players with les than a games worth of time in a local cup competition open to all-comers, yet argue to delete a guy who has played several games at the FIFA Club World Cup which pits the winners of all the confederation top champions leagues against each other. ClubOranje^T 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:23, 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) 18:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Lacoste[edit]

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

Seems somewhat promotional and non-notable person. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 16:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - This is not a résumé.Acnetj (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources presented are decent; a news search shows many more sources in Forbes and other good pubs. Notability seems to be established. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not properly established here — none of the sources present in the article are about Lacoste, but rather all simply namecheck his existence briefly within coverage of other people. This is not how you demonstrate a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article: he needs to be the subject of a source, not merely mentioned in coverage of somebody or something else, before that source counts as a WP:GNG-assisting reference. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked again. You're right. Striking earlier vote.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:59, 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 delete. If someone can find good foreign language sources they can ask for undeletion at the usual places (User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus and WP:REFUND) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Rasche[edit]

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

References consist of two dead links. Can't find much else online on the subject. Simply not notable. RelaxedTim (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far that is two cases of WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. KDS4444 ^(talk) 18:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See earlier AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gal Rasché. However, the earlier article, from a time when sourcing standards were weaker, had no actual references, only links to subject-associated web sites and concert programs. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note. There are two deleted histories here, under Gal Rasche and Gal Rasché. The latter was created in February 2006 and deleted in November 2006 by Can't sleep, clown will eat me, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gal Rasché. It was recreated on 22 February 2010 as Gal Rasche (which had been a deleted redirect), and speedy deleted the next day by NJA. In August this year, KDS4444 asked NJA to undelete it following an OTRS request.

Someone (NJA?) should merge those histories, and rename this AFD 2. I've edited the article, so I probably shouldn't do it myself. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is this source from September 2013, not mentioned in the article, by de:Edwin Baumgartner. But is it a letter to the editor (Leserbrief)? It calls her Galina Kroutikova, which this article used to say was an earlier name of hers. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I currently can't find RS other than the slim pickings in the article and the link I posted above. According to this blog post, written c. 2007, Rasche was running a guesthouse in Vienna at that time with her husband, and teaching piano. Because she wanted to work as a conductor, she staged her own concerts; if I've understood it correctly, she hired the venue and the orchestra.
The article's only reference to Rasche's notability is that NEWSru mentioned her in passing in 2011, in an article about the Saint Petersburg Conservatory, in a list of the conservatory's "famous" graduates. However, I see that an IP address geolocating to Austria added Rasche's name, unsourced, to the list of "outstanding" students in the Russian WP article on the conservatory in 2009. Her name was still there in 2011 when the NEWsru article appeared, so the NEWsru author may have copied it.
According to Lcamtuf during the first AfD, the article appeared in 2006 "on multiple major Wikipedias on the same day in precisely the same form", written by Djiggy, aka Slidersoul and, on the Russian WP, aka Galrasche (see redirect). That the article existed on several projects was interpreted in August this year by KDS4444 as signalling notability; hence the request to undelete. NDJ restored the text to User:KDS4444/Gal Rasche, and KDS moved it over. Perhaps the articles on other projects have improved since 2006, but checking everything would be a lot of work. What I'd suggest is that this be deleted, and that someone interested in keeping it conduct a search for RS in any language, rewrite it in draft space if enough sources exist, then go to DRV for consensus to recreate it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gal Rasché Toddst1 (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per slimvirgin's work and recommendation. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one Wiener Zeitung review that we have is not enough, especially in light of SarahSV's discoveries. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to establish her notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:46, 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) 18:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Biif[edit]

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

Fails GNG (insufficient coverage in RS]], also fails MUSICBIO, and the single valid reference only shows that he lived and worked in Dubai in 2005. Batternut (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician and actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 12:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Authority[edit]

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

Unnotable band. One of the sources listed is a blog titled "Rare and obscure music". Everything listed is trivia, like the fact like that one performs as a backup artist for Britney Spears or one of their singles was written by someone with a WP article. Other sources are discogs and allmusic, and finally an LA times article about one of the individuals after he left the band. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, charted on Billboard. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two references to the article, including this album review. The coverage and charts are enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 09:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet multiple WP:BAND criteria #2 and #5. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BAND national charting album and singles on a notable label. Allmusic bio and reviews as opposed to a bare listing are a WikiProject Music reliable source and far more selective than Wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:48, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Paradise[edit]

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

References made up of staff directories and single blog article. Nothing to show that it meets basic requirements. Created by disclosed paid editor. RelaxedTim (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a university professor ("university" and "distinguished" being academic equivalents)— this means the subject meets the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC, and therefore likely warrants an article. Some of the article's content is connected to directory information because that information is not self-serving, is not contested, etc., and is therefore acceptable as a source of information per WP:BLP. If you wish to argue that he is not notable, can you please provide links to policy pages explaining why? (Also: can you please provide a link to a policy page stating that articles created by disclosed paid editors should be deleted? Thanks!) KDS4444 ^(talk) 14:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being a Univesity professor does NOT mean the subject is notable. Please read WP:ACADEMIC. RelaxedTim (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5, WP:ACADEMIC: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". What am I missing? KDS4444 ^(talk) 01:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep its a PROF pass and it isn't unduly promotional. Being a University Professor is different than being a professor at a university. The former is an academic rank equivalent to a distinguished chair, making this a clear PROF pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per PROF, particularly "[t]he person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". SarahSV ^(talk) 01:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep clear keep per PROF. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as "University Professor" under WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just need to be kept balanced as issues of paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was involved in this controversy and resigned as the director of the King Fahd Center, which should probably be included.[2] There are multiple articles in that paper detailing this issue, but most of the articles are paywalled. Fraenir (talk) 15:24, 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) 18:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Carabelli[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO due to lack of chartings and independent, reliable coverage. DrStrauss talk 14:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like a CV. Deb (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 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) 18:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Dees[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The citations provided don't constitute significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that confer notability and appears to be a case of WP:OVERCITE. DrStrauss talk 14:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable country music singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find evidence that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 00:16, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pear Linux[edit]

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

This article on a Ubuntu-based OS was replaced by a redirect shortly after its creation in 2013, then restored as an article after an RfD discussion in January this year. I am finding little other than an installation how-to from 2013. a couple of failed Indiegogo campaigns ([3] , [4]) and a post indicating that development ceased in 2014. In sum, I am not seeing evidence that the project ever met WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Editor-1 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn’t meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 16:30, 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 closed, wrong forum. Drafts can be nominated for deletion only at WP:MFD. Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Christian Black[edit]

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

The draft article is being designed with fake information. Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this page for deletion, go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion. MassiveYR ♠ 13:39, 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 speedy keep WP:SK#1 (non-admin closure) Quinton Feldberg (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the Wolves: Homeland[edit]

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

~~Qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion G5. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination Quinton Feldberg (talk) 13:02, 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) 19:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Zimmerli[edit]

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

Not notable. The article says as much. Rathfelder (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article's lead says Not a prominent researcher or writer himself, it's not even trying to satisfy WP:NOTINHERITED. DrStrauss talk 14:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP issue right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:46, 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. Consensus appears to be that the topic is not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Anissimov[edit]

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

Entirely promotional, and with no demonstrate notability. The article was entirely devoted to promoting his views, to the extent thatI think G11 might apply. . Furthermore the sources are either mere mentions in general articles, or are about other people such Kurzwell, or are citations to his own works. The first AfD was closed as Delete, and nothing much has changed. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that neoreaction has sprung up and he's become the leader of the NRx transhumanists, I'd say he's more notable than he was in 2004. Smooth alligator (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion, but I see no evidence. But any possible notability is irrelevant if the article is entirely promotional--the basic policy is NOTADVERTISING, which prevents us from having a promotional article on a person whether or not they pass the [[WP:N] notability guideline. DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking now about a subtler kind of advertising than the kind that gets deleted under G11? Because when I think of unambiguous advertising, I think of stuff like, "Michael Anissimov now is selling Idaho Project for only $6.99. This handy eBook fits conveniently right into your Kindle. But wait, there's more! Call within the next 15 minutes and get this Idaho-shaped keychain absolutely free. You heard right -- FREE! $8.99 shipping and handling fee may apply.)"

It would be easier to make the case that it isn't promotional if more people had attacked him (and I did google for that; darn it, Southern Poverty Law Center, where are you when we need you?), but unfortunately, from what I can tell, they didn't. That's a little surprising, since normally any white nationalist will get attacked. But what I find is that Anissimov mostly got covered in articles that were either related to his interests outside of WN, or doing a survey of the NRx movement as a whole and saving the criticism for either the movement as a whole or more prominent figures in it.

It's not the most obvious case of notability, since it's not like a lot of major press outlets have devoted entire articles just to him, the way they have with, say, Curtis Yarvin or Ray Kurzweil. On the other hand, the mentions he does get usually go into enough detail to describe his philosophy and approach, so I don't see it as the most obvious case of non-notability either. Smooth alligator (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: mostly promotionalism and fringe theories. DrStrauss talk 14:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: is it WP:G4-worthy? I can't see the deleted version obviously. DrStrauss talk 14:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he did restore the deleted versions. 2007, 2009. Those were much shorter and more poorly-referenced articles, and at any rate, consensus can change over an 8-year period. Smooth alligator (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My own searching turns up lots of sources, but they're all blogs, social media, and niche-interest websites. None of which remotely approach being a WP:RS. There's a large number of references in the article; I'm not willing to look through all of them, but I did look at one that looked promising from New York Magazine. It's a WP:RS, and does indeed mention Anissomov, but the article's not really about him; it's about the broader subject of transhumanism. It's not a bad source, but it's not enough on its own. If somebody could point out (no more than) two or three of the best sources, I'd be willing to look at them in more detail. But, for now, this looks like a delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he seems to chronically be in more of a supporting actor type role than the star himself. He gets quoted in The Singularity Is Now, people thank him in their papers for his comments, and he serves in various capacities for different organizations, but whatever are his accomplishments usually get subsumed under those of others he influences or of the organizations he belongs to. Supposedly Accelerating Future was "among the most popular transhumanist blogs, with over 100,000 monthly uniques" but I didn't find an RS for that, and I'm not sure how much of an accomplishment that is anyway. I guess it pays in life sometimes to try to grab more of the spotlight and glory. @RoySmith:, oh, there is this piece. Smooth alligator (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete - he's "notable" in the tiny world of the NRx blogosphere, but the coverage of him in third-party RSes is really not convincing, despite the chaff of less than great references. If culled to solid RSes this would be very thin - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 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) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chemspace[edit]

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

Spammy and insufficient evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Twenty million entries? Type in perchlorate. Nothing. Now type it into WP. Nice article. Type the CAS number 14797-73-0. Nothing. It comes up in Google and WP. Rhadow (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly non-notable. Could be merged at Enamine Ltd if that one survives deletion too, but that seems unlikely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable online database.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 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) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACTION Nightrider[edit]

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

Non-notable through reason of lack of sources. Have been unable to find any reliable (third party) sources to support the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. A bus service that runs for one month, once a year, doesn't warrant an entry - at least in my opinion. Would probably be better suited to WikiVoyage. Dane|Geld 08:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely unencyclopedic. Batternut (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been in the process of moving it into a (more appropriate) user name space page (User:TapLover/ACTION Nightrider), which all new updates will be going through. TapLover (talk) From the creator of the page. —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 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) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enamine Ltd[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be written by a conflicted editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability failing CORPDEPTH. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also fails WP:GNG. RelaxedTim (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KGirl mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Terra Online[edit]

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

Non-notable computer game/spam. Sources don't support WP:GNG. Ping User:Czar per request. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any reliable sources about this game. Fails WP:GNG. Possibly redirect to List of Steam Early Access games. AdA&D 14:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per last AFD outcome. I don't believe any things changed since then, and this version of the article isn't any better. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Per nom and last deletion outcome._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:12, 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. Looks like we don't have evidence of GNG notability and little support for notability on other basis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Carpenter[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Lacks reliable sourcing. Seems drafted by the subject or someone close to subject. GetSomeUtah (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All roles so far are non-notable. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are all web ephemera, except for the Suffolk Times, in which the subject is only mentioned trivially. Article is basically a CV. Director roles are all red-links and it looks like, for the notable films listed, subject had routine job duties (Office Production Assistant, Script Supervisor, etc). This appears to be another nuisance page created as a class project (January to April, 2016) by a SPA who never edited any other articles. These "learning experiences" are creating an increasing amount of clean-up work. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the minor its in "misc credits" looked like a CV, so I deleted those. The other parts of the page bear more srutiny for notability-- her achievements are not inconsequential.104.163.152.238 (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The article was scrutinized and there are (currently) 2 factors that are BLP deal-breakers: (1) while there are lots of sources, none are RS (they're all web-cruft) and (2) each of the works for which she claims a creative role is itself obscure, i.e. her work "has not been noted". So, while I concede the subjective assertion about consequential achievements, she has not been sufficiently noted for a WP article. I'm glad to change my position if several RS can be found that note her and/or her work. I've done some general searching, but could not find anything. For reference, I'll note that flippant assertions, like "Meets GNG" (below), are unconvincing and should be dismissed. But, I'd be delighted to discuss any substantive findings you might have. Sometimes BLPs in the entertainment business have out-of-the-way sources that are not easy to find. Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That she worked with Spike Lee is reason enough for me to make her article notable. prokaryotes (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you mean to say that her notability is inherited by virtue of working with Lee? Agricola44 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She also worked as script supervisor for oscar nominated films, ie. American Gangster. (Just added that reference) prokaryotes (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's called 'holding down a job' - a task managed daily by billions. WP:NOTINHERIT is clear how much weight this argument holds. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean it is not notable that she was part of that film cast (She is not just a wife from the cast)? For other sources BFI, also here overview Shari Carpenter (Hollywood.com seems to be something like an authority for casts). Here is an interview, (lists awards) http://www.thehistorymakers.org/biography/shari-carpenter-41 prokaryotes (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literally none of the links you provided indicate she was part of the cast. Good effort, but that's me done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Script supervisor is part of a ~~film cast~~ films production crew. So it remains unclear if these jobs are not notable (since that has been implied). prokaryotes (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on updated content. I appreciate the effort that has gone into improving the article, and this is one of the benefits of the AfD process. I still find, however, that it suffers from exceedingly weak sourcing on key claims of notability. Most of the claimed awards and accolades are drawn from ShariCarpenter.com and from her own spoken oral history. Her first film caused a minor ripple at most, and her second film has -- as its only source -- a tangential mention in a foreign-language article on the subject of someone else. What is well documented is that Ms. Carpenter is a script supervisor, and no doubt a good one, but not one meriting an article in Wikipedia. GetSomeUtah (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Sources are not up to standards which would indicate notability. It appears she made one niche film in 2001 which did not demonstrate a broad cultural impact or garner criticism in the mainstream press. There is mention of another film, apparently, which again does not correlate with notability for the subject. She has scriptwriter credits but has not garnered significant mainstream press coverage in that regard. And so on... Going through the sources was tedious. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:39, 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 08:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete creating a bunch of non-notable works does not make a filmmaker notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there doesn't seem to be any sources about her. I did find a few small mentions of her independent film in book search, but nothing more. There is no indication that the independent film was popular or if it won any award.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:33, 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. I am guessing that people who can use Nepali sources may find evidence of notability; in that case just make a request at WP:DELREV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raksha Rai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poet and writer of questionable notability (WP:BIO). Sources are not independent and/or do not cover Rai. No relevant search results. Article was written by collaborator Mijash Tembe (WP:COI). Sandstein 21:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article was deleted for a reason. Notability has not yet been established. With a positive outlook, let's call it WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if someone could evaluate the Nepali sources. WikiProject Nepal doesn't seem super active but I'll give them a ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing has changed since article was last deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 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 redirect to Foodpanda#International brands. There is only one clear consensus here: That this should not exist as a stand-alone article. No consensus exists how to handle it, with delete and merge !votes being of equal weight, especially considering that neither WP:PROMO nor WP:PAID explicitly force us to delete material but mention deletion as a possible outcome (cf. WP:WHATISTOBEDONE which is part of WP:NOT and points among others to WP:ATD-R).

On the other hand, there is no agreement that there is really anything worth merging. In the end, the only thing that enjoys some consensus is to redirect to Foodpanda (since redirecting is part of merging and none of the delete !votes have mentioned any reason why this is not a likely search term). I am leaving the history in place so anyone who thinks there is something mergeable can pick content from there but redirecting and not slapping a {{merge to}} banner on it is the only way to ensure that the main consensus - that this should not be a stand-alone article - is followed.

Regards So Why 11:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EatOye[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy, apply given the promotionalism has not changed a year later and, worse, one of the last AfD voters was an uncovered paid user therefore casting questions all around. In a vote last comment, someone said WP:V was satisfied but a ToU violation like this immediately outweighs that; worse when WP:GNG is not an automatic factor, but instead a "possibility of an article", not guarantee. The offered sources before were no better:

1-3, 7, 8, 9 (the latter 3 especially sharing the same format style) a labeled announcement
4 is a self-serving indiscriminate press release
5 is a general business award for one specification, therefore not significant
6 is a company funding roll
10 is a business column for several companies, not only this one
11, 12 and 13 are all local interest stories, showing no independent coverage outside their business Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Alexius08 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the view of the sources given above is exactly right. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - "Pakistan’s largest online food portal". Whatever the state of the article maybe, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Satisfies WP:GNG. See: ET BR & TechInAsia. Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC) (WP:SOCKSTRIKE])[reply]

"Whatever the state of the article" is exactly what our policies show to be deletion material, at all costs. How would the article be successfully improved in order to resolve? SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and also fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been requested for speedy deletion.(G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion) FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not promotional, so WP:G11 does not apply. Cunard (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EatOye participants and closer: Patar knight (talk · contribs), Mar4d (talk · contribs), and Davey2010 (talk · contribs). (I am not pinging the two blocked users in the discussion.)
Cunard (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Mfarazbaig (talk · contribs). That EatOye is "Pakistan's largest online food portal" strongly establishes notability. The sources allow EatOye to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I've read the article and do not consider it promotional.
Cunard (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Modified to add "Merge". Cunard (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant concerns here are WP:What Wikipedia is not which a policy with a higher degree of importance over WP:Notability (with the latter clearly stating: "Must not be excluded under [policy] and [be] outside the scope of Wikipedia policy". SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neutrally written so it does not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Cunard (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my comment above to say I am fine with either a keep as a standalone article or a merge as suggested below by Gargleafg.
Cunard (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the genuine concerns here are founded in genuine policies: WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Not newspaper, WP:Not promotion, WP:Not webhost, WP:Not catalog and WP:Not advocacy; we honestly shouldn't need a clearer basis for such a deletion beyond these. That we should make an exception for one business as opposed to others is unreasonable and unconvincing to our goals here, and certainly this wouldn't be such a place for changing such standard policies. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 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 08:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Foodpanda. I think this argument is a moot point as EatOye is being rebranded as the already notable Foodpanda, a similar German company that bought EatOye in 2015. I personally think there's plenty of material that could be included in a standalone EatOye article if the current one was rewritten from a purely neutral point of view. But I don't think it'll matter when EatOye rebrands to Foodpanda. Gargleafg (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foodpanda per Gargleafg. Seems like the obvious solution. AdA&D 14:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per SwisterTwister. Violates our core content policies. DrStrauss talk 20:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foodpanda and / or Delete -- not independently notable and clearly spam content. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to merge, as they couldn't apparently even afford a proper wiki-spam-hack that would add inline refs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This reference, which shows published in print and online, talks about the merging of the companies. Doesn't need to be anything in detail, just a sentence in the Foodpanda article stating that it purchased the company. I can do so if someone pings me when this closes (if it closes as merge). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since it was clearly written in violation of Wikipedia core policy of WP:PROMO it should be deleted. Any editor may create it in the future if written in conformity with WP policies and guidelines, because even if trimmed of merged now the original non neutral content can easily get its way back through subtle means. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back through "subtle means" can happen in both cases unless the title is salted. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foodpanda#International brands. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Foodpanda#International brands.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:11, 24 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. Probably leaning towards keep who have made a slightly better argument. Jenks24 (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uruk GNU/Linux[edit]

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

It does not have notability and reliable sources. Editor-1 (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found three independent reliable sources giving it significant coverage, which is enough to establish notability: [5] [6] [7]--greenrd (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are not reliable sources. They are blog-like websites. Editor-1 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Softpedia is not a blog. You can't just judge a website by how it looks, you have to actually do some minimal research! In any case, even websites which are solely blogs, like the other two, are not precluded from being Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They simply have to be subject to editorial oversight and without evidence of being unreliable, which appears to be the case for the other two. Neither of them are personal blogs.--greenrd (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another distro, only coverage in blog-like sites. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEWSBLOG, blogs are not automatically non-RS. In this case, the three sources listed are ones that have full-time staff, are not personal or group blogs, and have editorial policies. That suggests this (barely) meets WP:GNG. It probably should be added to List of Linux distributions, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:00, 14 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 07:56, 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. So Why 09:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Challenges Foundation[edit]

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

Article is sourced almost entirely to its own website; has WP:PROMOTIONAL bend. Chetsford (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Without offering an opinion on the extent to which these contribute to notability of the organisation, I note that The Guardian has published items on their reports: in 2015 and 2017. AllyD (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*weak keep - sources shows that the foundation exists. I think it just passes the threshold.BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 9 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 07:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Authored by SPA. Article from NPR says what they plan to do. No reliable coverage on what they have done. Rhadow (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Additional sources showing clearance of WP:GNG found from the Stockholm School of Economics, an additional Reuters article, The Guardian and the Carnegie Endowment. The company they hired for their brand identity describes what they've done rather clearly: "Our work with the Global Challenges Foundation has centred around their complex report; 12 Risks that threaten human civilisation." - here. I'll edit the article to include these and soften the modest WP:PROMO tone. - GS ⋙ ☎ 01:19, 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 merge to Communist Party of Moldova. Jenks24 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Moldova (2012)[edit]

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

In fact this party didn't even existed, as it wasn't registered by the Moldovan Ministry of Justice. And, moreover, the people behind this movement didn't created a new party, but they tried at that time to restore the old Communist Party of Moldova which was dissolved by outlawing; source:English/Romanian. As I see there are no more recent news about the "adventure" of this party. The existence of this article is unjustified. At most there can be added one more phrase to the original article. XXN, 14:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add.: See the List of political parties in Moldova at justice.gov.md (Romanian) for confirmation that this party doesn't exist formally. XXN, 14:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as yet on keeping or deleting, but must point out that lack of recognition by the government doesn't mean that this party doesn't exist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 86.17.222.157, the problem here is not only the lack of recognition, but in fact the inexistence of this party - first of all there should be proven that this party exists, and only then that it meets the requirements of WP:N (as this was a one-day political "party", which suddenly appeared before 2011 local elections and then disappeared). Also, this article shows a misinformation by stating that the party was founded in 2012, while both the two cited sources are published in 2011 and no other mention regarding the year of 2012 exists. XXN, 15:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, which is why I didn't say "keep". I was just pointing out that non-recognition by the government doesn't in itself mean that it doesn't exist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:51, 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 12:50, 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 07:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The content on this article is better served under the Communist Party of Moldova page as it is the re-establishment (RT "revive") of the previous historical political party - which is Notable. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:02, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Samans[edit]

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

Non-notable metal band. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 14:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Had a look but could find no evidence of notability, general or musical. Hampered a bit by their name just being an alternate spelling of "shaman", which their Chinese name translates to, and searching for it finds mostly things on shamans, shamanism etc.. But if they were notable would expect to find something other than social media.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do find something other than social media. The band is the main subject of an academic paper, and it is covered in some news sources ([8]、[9]). --Antigng (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 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 07:46, 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) 19:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Morales[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are mostly single line mentions. reddogsix (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable sources present 1, 2, 3, All his works appear notable. MassiveYR ♠ 16:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not exactly, "...in-depth, non-trivial support." reddogsix (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. None of the claims give a presumption of notability, and none of the references are significant coverage of him. For example, one reference is "Someone Created a Damn Daniel App"; he is (one of) the someones and "Elmer Morales, the founder of Koder" is the entirely of the coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:44, 12 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 07:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Daaamn Daniel! All the coverage listed is about the app, not the subject. At best, it's passing mentions of the subject. I did a quick BEFORE, and didn't see anything more promising. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of WP:SIGCOV about the man.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:42, 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 delete. So Why 09:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caracana[edit]

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

Non-notable folk band. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 14:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources to support this. I have no issue with the notability here. Dysklyver 08:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the band to be notable. There are sources to support it and other sources for which I cannot provide a reference, including being the subject of someone's doctorate on Cornish Music and Culture. Plus many newspaper articles which don't have a digital copy.*Please keep Pema Wainwright (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Pema Wainwright (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG & WP:BAND. All but one of the cited sources of the article are user-generated, without having editorial oversight. They aren't even considered reliable on this project, let alone using them to prove notability. The only reliable source of the article lists the name of the above band with other 14 bands while mentioning timings of a village festival.

We need in-depth coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources, which is totally missing here. I couldn't find any decent source either. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pema Wainwright, you don't need a digital copy of the newspaper articles for use in the article – just cite the source where they can be found, e.g. "Smith, Joe (12 October 2017). 'Carcana Review'. The Times". But it would help if they weren't just local Cornish newspapers, to prove that they are notable outside of the local community. Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 14 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 07:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The user name of the page creator – who also happens to be almost the sole contributor to the article – suggests that they should be the last person to edit it. But unfortunately the use of WP for promotion by COI editors is common. Anyway, their unverifiable claims should be taken with a pinch of salt. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Thank you for the newspaper article advice Richard3120 I have now done this, although I did only have local newspaper articles to add at this time. I had previously added newspaper articles from France, as Caracana have often played there, but these are not so numerous or easy to access from another country. NitinMlk claims that I stated that I "should be the last person to edit it". I haven't done this, nor do I understand where it has come from. As far as notability is concerned, in Wikipedia's guide for Musicians and Ensembles, Caracana fit perfectly under category 7; 'Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city'. Caracana are one of the most prominent representatives of the 'new wave' of the Cornish Revival. There is a local scene that they are very much a part of. I have now fulfilled all criteria that has been asked of me, with references to back it all up. I kindly request that this article be kept. If there is more that I can do, please let me know how. I am fairly new to Wikipedia.Pema Wainwright (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, every participant can !vote only once, which you've already done in your first comment here. So I struck out your duplicate !vote.

Secondly, as far as the french news article is concerned, it isn't about Caracana. It just listed its name with other 14 bands while mentioning the timings of an event. That's not even a passing mention.

Thirdly, please read my comment again. I didn't claim that you said this or that. I just wanted to point out WP:Conflict of interest, but couldn't elaborate because of WP:Outing.

Finally, in your latest edits, you've added three sources. One of them is a local newspaper, which mentioned your band in passing. The other two – "What's On, Friday" & "What's On, Wednesday" – seems like lists of program schedules. In short, your band has got few passing mentions here & there in local media, but it isn't WP:Notable. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relevant traditional folk bands such as this one should normally be kept under WP:BAND Section 7. In my opinion this subject meets WP:GNG and therefore also WP:BAND Section 1.

I see in this discussion the issue of Pema Wainwright editing the article about a group which includes a person of the same name. I do not want to seem bitey, but this could be a WP:COI. Once this is closed I will probably have to rewrite the article to deal with this.

The band is important locally, has played at Lowender Peran for example, and there is a fair bit of local coverage not mentioned here from Cornwall Live, The West Briton and the Cornish Guardian. (if it was online I would link it). Further afield the band has represented Cornwall (in its celtic nation capacity, which is a cultural thing) at the international Festival Interceltique de Lorient, which is a culturally important event, if not massive with only ~70,000 attendees. The group can sing in Cornish, this automatically makes them an integral part of the Cornish Revival movement, as far as I can ascertain, they appear relevant enough to have attracted attention in the other celtic nations, eg Wales and Brittany, again this is local coverage, but it is from other localities therefore showing relevance further afield, as well as showing the topic meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND.

Anyway I have already commented that I think it ought to be kept, so this is just the reasoning. Dysklyver 19:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Your comment is full of unverifiable claims, bordering on WP:ILIKEIT. You must quote reliable sources instead of making claims by yourself, as you are not a reliable source. It seems clear that the above band didn't get more than passing mentions in the local sources, let alone national/international sources. Please also elaborate how it meets GNG, as I couldn't find even a single in-depth reliable source about Caracana. If the sources are offline, you can quote them here. So that's not a problem as well. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:47, 24 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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karamdaata[edit]

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

Article has only one source, of questionable quality. Does not seem to meet WP:MOVIE requirements. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While caution is required for a movie this old in a non-English lenguage, the most significant reference I can find is this one, which implies that this film was forgettable by even local standards. All other results are movie downloads, YouTube clips, directory listings, etc. No evidence it passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 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 07:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 24 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 00:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Cross[edit]

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

Weak claim for notability, orphan, and sourced only with web ephemera from the 2001 to 2008 period, some of which are dead links. I can't tell if this person is indeed a notable programmer, but the problems I noted suggested the larger community should have a look. Agricola44 (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 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 07:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and further the subject is a computer programmer but not clear how the particular subject is notable amongst the millions of computer programmers .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Em Prince[edit]

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

Entirely promotional article of a non-notable musician who fails WP:ANYBIO. Majority of the claims/achievements are probably a hoax. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails MUSICBIO and GNG. None of the sources in the article is close to meeting RS. Stanleytux (talk) 20:52, 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 07:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:13, 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. A Train^talk 06:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Trux Extreme: Offroad Edition[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unable to find any critic reviews on MobyGames.com to add notability. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's a dedicated critic review from IGN indirectly linked in this article itself - http://m.ign.com/articles/2008/02/06/monster-trux-arenas-review - are there really no others? Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The entire article is three sentences, and if nothing more can be added to it outside of a single review, then it obviously should be deleted or merged to Data Design Interactive. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk)
Weak keep: several reliable sources show up in the CSE: IGN, Juexvideo, and GryOnline, among a few others. There was also a mention of it in Eurogamer's review of Space Invaders Extreme about how bad it was. IGN's review is the only dedicated critical review, but this is at least enough to verify release dates and gameplay details. JOE BRO 64 19:03, 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 further sources were presented despite being twice told that the sources are not sufficient. So Why 09:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Libris Association[edit]

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

Article about an organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown to get it over WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH -- and further, the article was created by User:Luckyexlib, suggesting a direct conflict of interest. As always, every organization is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- it must be properly sourced as passing a Wikipedia notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The following confirms the EX LIBRIS ASSOCIATION through an independent source -- an international directory of library, archive and information science associations published in 2011

WORLD GUIDE TO LIBRARY, ARCHIVE AND INFORMATION SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONS (2011) page 133 Canada 2011

179 Ex libris Association (ELA)

Address c/o Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto. 140 51. George St, Toronto, ON M5S 3G6, Canada. E-mail: ExLibris@fis.uloromo.ca; Languages: English Established: 1986 Officers 2005: Pres: Peter Mutchler; Past Pres: Nancy Williamson; Sec: Jean Weihs; Member Sec: Jean Wechter; Treas: Diane Henderson. 9 Members at large Staff: None General Assembly General membership meets once a year Membership 200 personal and 5 organizational members. Requirements: Interest in objectives of Association. Dues: 25 Canadian Dollars Structure: (Governed by Board of Directors. Affiliations: Ontario Library Association Sources of Support: Membership dues. donations. sales Major Fields of Interest: History of libraries; oral history; archival material Major Goals and Objectives: (1) Provide a forum for interested individuals; (2) provide a vehicle for collection of oral library history; (3) identify and ensure collection of materials relating to library history; (4) encourage identification of holdings of archival history: (5) provide a focus for intellectual and social activities of retired members of the library community Activities: Personal and Institutional Archives, W. Kaye Lamb Award, Library Education Anniversary Publications Official Journal: ELAN Ex Libris Association Newsletter (pdf)

Sincerely, Luckyexlib — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyexlib (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Directory entries are not notability-assisting sources. We require reliable source coverage about it in actual books and newspapers, not just directory listings. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 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 09:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources in the article are published by the article subject. Notability not established by WP:RS. A seach turns up nothing. Note to Luckyexlib: if there was an association of Nobel prize winners and no one wrote about that associaton in reliable sources, we would not have an article on it here in Wikipedia. The standard for notability (i.e. inclusion) is that RS have written about the article subject. In the case of Ex Libris, there is little to no coverage in published sources. Hope that helps.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LET's KEEP IT GUYS! SEE BELOW FOR INDEPENDENT STUFF

A

Association’s work cited independently:

“With so few schools, the historical development of education at each Canadian institution and across institutions has been well-documented in ALISE statistical reports (see Daniel and Saye (2005) for an example of an annual report) and the work of the Ex Libris Association, a national Canadian association of people who have spent an important part of their work life in libraries, archives, publishing houses and adjunct fields and who are now attracted to historical and current issues (see, for example, Land, 2004).” Cited by “ Ken Haycock, “Education for library and information studies in Canada: a cross-cultural comparison” New Library World ((2007) B Ex Libris publication on Canadian library technicians cited by Erickson, N. and Shamchuk, L. "Paraprofessional Library Education in Canada: An Environmental Scan / La formation paraprofessionnelle en bibliothéconomie: un portrait de la situation." Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, vol. 41 no. 1, 2017 C Ex Libris published monograph, The Morton Years (1995), cited by Greg Bak, "The Greatest Librarians of the World.... Were Not Graduates of Library School" Libraries & Culture (2002).

Ex Libris Association people, activity, and publications also cited in the following 13 cases in a “quick” search covered 1987 to 2017.

"Annual Conference Awards 2008." Feliciter 54.4 (2008): 148-52. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. "CLA National Conference Awards 2012." Feliciter 58.4 (2012): 19-22. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. "Ex Libris Interested in Archival Materials." Feliciter 33.4 (1987): 9. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. "Recent Publications Relating to Canada." The Canadian Historical Review 77.4 (1996): 591-609. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. Chang, Lucy. "Olga Bernice Bishop: Librarian-Bibliographer-Educator." Order No. MM66746 University of Alberta (Canada), 1991. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. Davidson-Arnott, Frances. "Libraries in Iceland." Feliciter 51.5 (2005): 225-7. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. ---. "Reborn to New Glory: The British Museum Reading Room." Feliciter 52.2 (2006): 79-81. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. Haycock, Ken. "Education for Library and Information Studies in Canada: A Cross-Cultural Comparison." New Library World 108.1 (2007): 32-9. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. Hulse, Elizabeth. "The Morton Years: The Canadian Library Assn, 1946-1971 // Review." Quill & Quire 62.3 (1996): 68. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. Newman, Wendy. "Library Education at 100: Still Hazy After all these Years?" Feliciter 51.1 (2005): 16-7. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. Weihs, Jean. "Retired - but Still Part of the Library World with Ex-Libris." Feliciter 55.5 (2009): 200-1. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. ---. "The Emergence of Library Technician Programs in Canada: A Brief History." Feliciter 54.2 (2008): 70-3. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017. Weihs, Jean, and Frances Davidson-Arnott. "The Evolution of Library Technician Programs in Canada." Feliciter 51.1 (2005): 27-30. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2017.

Sincerely, Luckyexlib

Luckyexlib, please learn to sign your posts: WP:SIGN. Most of the citations in the second paragraph are from the online newsletter of the Canadian Library association... not particularly impressive. The quoted source in the first paragraph is what is called a passing mention. WP:RS has been mentioned several times because you should read it and inderstand it.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on reliable sources:

I believe references to the activity and publications of Ex Libris Association in major periodicals above such as ---

New Library World ((2007) Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science (2017) Libraries & Culture (2002) The Canadian Historical Review (1996) Quill & Quire (1996)

are reliable sources.

As for Feliciter (RIP) articles published by the Canadian Library Association in print and online until 2016, I would think that NOT FINDING INFORMATION OR ANY EVIDENCE about Ex Libris in a national library publication would bolster an argument for deletion rather than than the reverse thinking above.

Luckyexlib (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Luckyexlib[reply]

Reliable sources, for Wikipedia purposes, are independent of the subject. An organization does not get a Wikipedia article just because it has a website about itself, or because it has "coverage" in the newsletter of a directly-affiliated organization like the Canadian Library Association, or because its existence gets namechecked in articles that aren't about it — it gets a Wikipedia article when, and only when, it's the subject of coverage in sources that are fully independent of it. And you also need to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules — as a person who's directly involved with the organization you get no special privilege to control the article's existence or its content or its sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 24 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 Procedural close. Page has already been speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 11:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freshers-Job.com[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Only reference comes from Alexa and a WP:BEFORE search revealed no reliable sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article also seems to be written like a ad, violating WP:NOTAD. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obviously in violation of G11 and fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Per nom, no signifigant sources can be found. I have nominated the article for speedy deletion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:41, 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)}}} 04:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superman: Ultimate Flight (Six Flags Discovery Kingdom)[edit]

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

There is already an article at Superman: Ultimate Flight that has similar info. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As Hawkeye75 suggested, the content in this article is covered at Superman: Ultimate Flight. Carajou (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I didn't know they were 2 different coaster types, close this thread. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator has !voted Keep and requested closure of the AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I'd have made my first non-admin closure had there not have been an earlier merge !vote which I'm sure Carajou would be happy to strike now we know these two articles are about completely rides made by two different manufacturers, despite v. similar names. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:05, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onassis Scholars' Association[edit]

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

no actual evidence for nobility. Self-published sources and mere notice only. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Not the slightest sign of notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn; does not meet WP:NORG. This content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeon Su-Been[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Her results: http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00102125.htm Hergilei (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for skaters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SKATER.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:16, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babymoon[edit]

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

The article was created to promote a film which has passed into blessed obscurity; there is little evidence anyone uses this term at all - especially in the sense the article uses it. One of the two cites that even mentions it uses it in a completely different sense. I have no idea how this junk passed AFC. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could only find this Romper article about the subject. I'd assume that article alone probably isn't enough to constitute "significant coverage" but I'll leave it to the AFD experts to decide. AdA&D 02:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the article does seem to have been created to promote a film (fortunately, the reference to the film has been removed from the article), the word "babymoon" is in use with the meaning indicated ("a vacation taken by couples when one of them is pregnant"). See this book, this book, Parents magazine, Travel Channel, Scientific American, and Reader's Digest, for example. I don't know whether that means that the article should be kept, but the word didn't just come out of nowhere and land in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable catch, but still, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Is there anything actually significant or notable about going on holiday when pregnant? The article doesn't really suggest so. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We do not have enough reliable source discussion of this as a social idea, and the focus on the use of the word, instead of focusing on the actions involved, which is what an encyclopedia article would do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable neologism; I've only heard the term in promotional materials for vacation destinations. No need to point to wikt:babymoon power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously this is clearly case of dictionary definition, which Wikipedia is not. It should be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:49, 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 redirect to List of Indianapolis neighborhoods. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Park Lafayette[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Over a decade after the first AfD, this article is still unreferenced, and still reeks of original research. Claims of notability made in the previous AfD have never been backed up with significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a reference harshly reverted that was added during the last AfD as part of a rewrite of the page. But I can't see the source, and I also tried the wayback machine, http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060911/NEWS01/609110405/1006/NEWS01.

I didn't have any luck finding the government issues on Google, which suggests that either I'm using the wrong search term, or not looking in the right places. What I see is that this is an area recognized by real estate companies. Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Indianapolis neighborhoods. The Indy Star article seems to have been reverted because that edit broke the original AfD notice. In any event, neither Lexis-Nexis nor EBSCO's Newspaper Source Plus indicate that the Star had any articles about this subject during 2006, so the editor may have been mistaken in their linking. No evidence has been provided in the last eleven years of notability and it appears that none is currently available, either. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:56, 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. Sources indicate that the supporters group passes GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Block Blues[edit]

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

Request for deletionas subject Lacks Wikipedia:NOT .Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports), Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and third party references Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in the article show significant coverage in independent RS, so it passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This page has cited 6 sources and most of them not uses the term "West Block Blues".No real indication that the supporters of the club have recieved in depth reliable coverage. A lot of the sources are just stats about attendences and WP:ROUTINE news reporting about the sort of events that happen to some degree to all groups of football fans thus delete. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article in its current state only has six (admittedly not-so-good) sources and it certainly doesn't pass WP:GROUP or WP:NSPORT, those factors alone don't disqualify it from meeting WP:GNG. Just a cursory Google News search found a plethora of sources dealing with the West Block Blues as either the main subject or an important part of the piece (in no particular order, [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] bolded articles have the West Block Blues as the primary subject). It may be unorthodox to grant a fan group its own standalone article, but I think the depth of coverage offers a good argument to do so. Gargleafg (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This page currently cited 6 sources and only two of them barely uses the term "West Block Blues" Notable fan clubs may get more coverage than this, but there is nothing to suggest this club is anything of note. No reliable secondary sources mentioning this fan group, thus failing WP:RS, WP:V and notability for non-commercial organisations at WP:CLUB. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than enough reliable sources have been identified by Gargleafg for WP:GNG to be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existing references isn't enough to justify a standalone article , they don't pass WP:GNG as significant coverage of the subject directly in detail; .There is the Supporters section which is covered very well in its parent article Bengaluru FC. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:24, 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.