Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 October	24 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 Procedural close (malformed AFD). Actual article is at AFD. (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Cynthia B. Lee[edit]

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

The person is not notable and the article is mostly a collection of minor details about personal life. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:10, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Runner Automobiles[edit]

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

This company is mentioned in a few routine news items such as announcements of opening a showroom or a new product, but has not been the subject of sustained, in-depth coverage, so it fails WP:COMPANY. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Two editors have repeatedly added copyright violations and promotional content, so I can sympathize with a desire to punish them by simply deleting the whole thing, but it is a notable company, and an array of other options are available for dealing with disruptive behavior.

I'm unimpressed with most of the cited sources, but more than twenty independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage are listed under further reading, and could be used to build a balanced article.

The company has been receiving much more than WP:ROUTINE coverage for 15 years, as it has gone from one of Bangladesh's earliest motorcycle assemblers, to one of the country's three or four leading motorcycle manufacturers, to exporter, to automobile retailer, and now to truck builder. Handily meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Me punishing the editors? Please assume good faith, and read WP:AGF if you're not clear what that means. If you think I'm disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, please take your case to WP:ANI.

There are not 20 independent reliable sources. This is two sentences. It's a WP:ROUTINE announcement, in no way supporting notability as defined at WP:SIGCOV. The second one is a brief, routine announcmenet, and the subject of the article is not Runner. It is an article about Luoyang Northern Ek Chor Motorcycle Company of China. It includes a couple sentences about Runner, about their past association with Luoyang. The third one is an article about the Bangladesh motorcycle industry, that mentions Runner in passing. Again, passing mention fails WP:SIGCOV. Then more routine announcements, more articles not really about Runner. This link is a 404 page not found. Here is a superficial, routine company profile of a mere 186 words. This one is phony article that is a copy of a press release, from here. The "Independent" indeed. This is the SAME press release, passed off as news in a different publication. In fact, 13 of the links on this list are from either the Independent or The Daily Star, and if they are passing off press releases as news, can we seriously accept any of their stories as reliable sources? Even if we do, it's not deep, it's not really about Runner, and it's not significant.

WP:CORPDEPTH goes into detail as to why these kinds of weak to fake sources don't qualify as evidence of notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dead link is fixed now. It's yet another article that is not about Runner Automobiles. It's a general news article about motorcycle sales. Halfway down it drops in a quote from a Runner executive for some POV about the sales trend. Like the others, it only underscores the lack of coverage about Runner itself. Passing mention in many articles with no coverage about the topic itself is a hallmark of a company that fails WP:COMPANY per WP:CORPDEPTH. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Dennis Bratland:The export story in The Independent is not "phony", or "fake", or a press release. Its origin, as it plainly states, is Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha, the oldest of the three major news agencies in Bangladesh. It is no more unusual for The Independent to print a BSS story than it is for The Washington Post to print a story from AP.

In years of editing Bangladesh-related articles I've never before encountered prnewsbd.com. That, and the fact that their homepage is suspended, suggests that they're one of the country's hundreds of ephemeral self-styled news portals. It is not unusual for such sites to copy content from elsewhere without attribution. Them copying BSS doesn't make the content a press release or make BSS or The Independent unreliable.

The Daily Star is the largest English-language newspaper in Bangladesh, arguably the most professional, and the only one with a decent online archive. For those reasons it tends to be cited frequently in Bangladesh-related writing, much as The New York Times is in US-related writing. I haven't taken the trouble of looking for Bengali-language sources because there is an abundance of English-language ones.

The Minister of Commerce doesn't turn up at insignificant companies' factories to tout their achievements. New Age, and The Daily Observer also covered this, and could be added to the further reading.[1][2] Some papers, such as The New Nation, covered it when it was just a plan, others such as Prothom Alo and The Kathmandu Post covered the trade fair that took place between the planning stage and the first shipment.

You are correct that some of the entries in the further reading list are short. That is especially true of the oldest articles, before the company achieved notability. However, at least four of the articles entirely about Runner are significantly longer, at over 400 words each, than what you singled out.[3][4][5][6] Furthermore, WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly says that, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Even a 186-word article can contribute to notability, although on its own it would be insufficient.

Referencing WP:CORPDEPTH, you dismiss the further reading as "weak to fake". However, none of the further reading contains "merely trivial coverage" of any of the types itemized under WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage of opening a new plant employing 2000, making the leap from assembler to engine manufacturer, taking a private company public, opening a new export market, and going from motorcycles to cars and trucks is in a different league to those examples.

You are correct that some of the entries in the further reading list are not primarily about Runner. WP:SIGCOV explicitly says that the company need not be the main topic. It's possible that there's some overlap, such that a couple of the sources could be discarded, but I did not include any article that I did not believe contained something unique - a date, a partner company, a market share, etc. - that would help to build an article greater than a permastub. The further reading addresses the topic directly and (taken together) in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, as required by WP:SIGCOV.

Invariably described in independent sources as a leading motorcycle company in a country of 160 million people, where a motorcycle is analogous to the family car in the West, Runner is the sort of topic one would expect to find in a general purpose encyclopedia. Sources exist that make it possible to write a reasonably complete and balanced article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The company is seems notable and per the argument provided by Worldbruce.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Worldbruce's explanation of the sources. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:32, 31 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) 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Obermeyer[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Reads like a puff piece. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found, and aded, one semi-reliale source. Other than that, there do not seem to be extant sources to support even WP:GNG.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 30 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) 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 North Korea's Shelling of South Korea across Western Front[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, there's no sign this was a particularly notable event. A variety of issues with the content, including WP:NPOV. Title is also problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quite a long article about an artillery exchange that caused no casualties. Seems like the Wikipedia version of a PhD (knowing more and more about less and less). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At best, insert a single sentence about the exchange into Ulchi-Freedom Guardian.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:00, 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) 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DMZ Landmine Provocation by North Korea[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, there's no sign this was a particularly notable event. A variety of issues with the content, including WP:NPOV. Title is also problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a plausible redirect title. Blythwood (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lots of events like this have taken place along the DMZ. Notable only for those immediately involved. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TJRC (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anita C. Hill[edit]

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

This is, as far as I can tell, a non-notable Lutheran pastor and real estate agent in St. Paul, Minnesota. I don't see any basis for notability claimed in the article, nor can I find one in my own searches. The closest I see is "She is one of a handful of openly gay and lesbian pastors who served congregations within the ELCA prior to change in the denomination's policies in 2009," which apparently caused some controversy within the church at the time, but does not rise to WP:GNG levels.

Note, this is not Anita Hill, the attorney and law professor who played a major role in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

The article came to my attention in another AfD discussion when another user pointed to this article in a WP:WAX argument.

I note the article has been around for 12 years, so if I'm missing something obvious, please feel free to clue me in; I realize it's unusual for a non-notable article to stay around for so long. TJRC (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC) TJRC (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: well-sourced article on notable woman - pioneer within her church. Papers preserved by state historical society gives an indication of notability. PamD 09:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Her ordination made national news and was part of actions leading to a split within the large denomination. EdwinHJ | Talk 21:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the subject of a documentary film that made a film festival tour [7] EdwinHJ | Talk

Withdrawn by nom; based on the This Obedience film, as well as the preservation of her papers, if nothing else. I have added those to the article. EdwinHJ, if you have anything relating to the the split, can you add that as well? TJRC (talk) 22:08, 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. This is another article for a non-notable startup. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juengo[edit]

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

Subject is an online startup that didn't make it. It was started in 2013 and appears to have gone offline a/o 2014. It doesn't meet WP:GNG because of the lack of substantive information about them- passing mentions have been trivial and about the fact that it was a 'startup.' Jip Orlando (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable topic. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unambiguous advertising; no indications of notability or significance. I requested a G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I could find nothing but business listings and nothing since 2014. It's a start-up, and has got 1-10 employees, but it appears there are just 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Agreed with coffman, this is a textbook G11, or at the very least A7. If it's disputed, that's fine, but this article shouldn't exist as it is and I don't think it can be brought up to speed. South Nashua (talk) 22:05, 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) 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Krishna[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for this actress whose first role is in an as yet unreleased film. There is recent coverage about her receiving internet abuse but no indepth coverage about her. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly promotional as well as doubtful in terms of notability. Deb (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not in any way meet notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some minor local coverage but nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 00:53, 30 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) Kagundu Talk To Me 05:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Farm (stud)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Little coverage in independent, reliable sources to suggest any encyclopedic notability. DrStrauss talk 20:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative searches:

katsumi yoshida northern farm

northern farm hokkaido

These show it is a probable duplicate of Shadai Stallion Station, I suggest it is kept as a redirect. Dysklyver 21:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to ja:社台グループ, Northern Farm is, along with Shadai Stallion Station, part of a larger group called the Shadai Group. It thus not a duplicate of Shadai Stallion and should not be redirected to that. The choice is either to keep it, delete it or create a separate article on the Shadai Group to which it will be redirected. The question to me seems to be whether it is significant enough to have its own article. An article like this says it is the largest and most successful part of the Shadai Group, so there could be evidence that it deserves its own article. Here are some other articles: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. The Japanese Wiki article ja:ノーザンファーム has a lot of references, though most seem to be confirmations that winning horses are from the Farm. The Shadai Group itself seems quite notable, with introductions in the NY Times, Japan Times, etc.: [18], [19], [20], etc. Michitaro (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the information presented. It's rather foolhardy to say there are no sources when the subject is specialized and unfamiliar, and the likely sources are in a language one cannot read. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a redirect to its parent company is in order? DrStrauss talk 08:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t recommend it, the Shadai Group is not a parent company in the normal sense, it is an investment 'group', that is a group of people who club together to own racehorses. This article is about is a stud farm owned by the Yoshida family. The main connection is that the horses on this farm are mostly owned by the Shadai Group, and the Yoshida family are integral to the Shadai Group. many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of horses are kept and bred here which are owned by the Shadai Group though. Dysklyver 16:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a very influential organisation in Japanese sport and there's a lot of relevant information that could be added by someone with even a rudimentary knowledge of JapaneseMarrcol (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there a version on the ja.wiki we can port over and translate? L3X1 (distænt write) 01:34, 31 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. Per the request of the creator RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LUCK-e Jumper[edit]

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

LUCK-e (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:NGAME and WP:NSOFT due to lack of major reviews and significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Also bundling in stub about the main character. DrStrauss talk 20:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't quite justify A7, although there's more about their website and Instagram account than the supposed game. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy, how about G11, unambiguous advertising/promotion? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7, author has explicitly requested deletion here and here. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:12, 24 oage.October 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete G7. Well done to page creator for recognising the issue, and blanking the page. Would not have met WP:GNG, and would have been WP:TOOSOON. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 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 redirect to List of RPI buildings#Greene Building. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greene Building, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted and recreated but both the prod and speedy tags were removed. No independent sources are provided to establish notability nor are there any claims that might otherwise indicate it is anything other than a run of the mill university campus building. TM 20:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created this article about 10 years ago, but to be honest I can't remember why. Not very notable. Would consider merging into a List of Buildings at RPI page, but no such page exists anymore. Danski14^(talk) 21:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge, probably to List of RPI buildings#Greene Building. I created the list-article to address the main complaint of this AFD. For this university and others, I wish that there should be no further AFDs created for separate buildings. Any marginal buildings can always be merged/redirected to a suitable list-article, which should be created rather than debated. --do ncr am 20:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of RPI buildings page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of RPI buildings page. I did try to source it; came up empty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 29 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. Sandstein 10:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Arte[edit]

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

Was marked for speedy, however, as the article is not promotional in tone and the notability or lack of it is unclear to me, I'm listing it here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text of the article is almost identical to the (French) text on the main page of the gallery's website. It probably would qualify for speedy deletion as a copyvio. Mduvekot (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Update: the link to the website that I referred to as the source of the text isn the article was originally http://www.arte.sn/ but has been changed to artedakar.com in this edit with the edit summary fixed org website to one that works even though http://www.arte.sn/ works just fine. Mduvekot (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited sources look reasonable. --SaseBulawayo (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are inadequate to establish notability. The bar is high for a gallery-- a small percentage are notable on their own. This one is not. Article also appears to be promotional listing of the artists represented.96.127.242.251 (talk) 03:34, 26 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 is an inappropriate quote farm. The "wrong venue" opinion is not taken into account as WP:AFD is clearly the proper venue in which to discuss the deletion of an article. Sandstein 10:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is yet another memorial page where countries respond to an attack with condemnation and condolences, sometimes in the "strongest terms". However, there is nothing inherently notable about these quotes and to put them all together like this is WP:SYNTH. The 2011 Norway attacks already sufficiently summarizes what this quote farm tries to convey hence a merge is entirely unnecessary and damaging. Note, I am not here to question the notability of the attacks, that is well-asserted and a given, but rather this page which gathered quotes simply to keep them away from the main article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - I am aware of the last two outcomes at AFD but my rationale is different and I believe editors have come a long way toward understanding why these pages do not meet notability standards or what Wikipedia is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In short even though this has been snow kept and keep with massive majority consensus with alot of good comments, twice - this is irrelevant and no one has previous considered your brilliant reasoning which has worked on at least two AfD's recently. I am not knocking your rationale, but in my opinion in this case it is not applicable, and Wikipedia does not run by precedent. However I will also note that the NOTNEWS aspect has been considered in both previous nominations on this article and rejected, and NOTNEWS was a key reason for the other similar AfD's working out how they did. It will be interesting to see what happens, this could result in a blanket deletion of articles if consensus allows this to go. Dysklyver 20:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The more notable ones as well as the summary are in the main article. We do not need to document wp:fart sympathy stmts of no lasting significance. These lists serve a function close to the event, allowing for future pare down of reactions as significance and lasting effect of established, without cluttering the main page. The future is now.Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it has been factually merged to 2011 Norway attacks already. As the nom says, this article is just a random collection of quotes. The main article's reactions section is much better organized, providing a proper encyclopedic overview of the international response in a prose form. I was editing the main article around the hectic times when the attack occurred, and split off the growing collection of international reactions to keep it from occupying a very sizeable portion of the main article. Reliable information about the actual attack was rather scarce at the time. The main page has since had ample time to develop as an article, and this page's deletion as an independent collection of rather unorganized quotes is well overdue. --hydrox (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per WP:SIZE. Why not just rename this to Reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks and merge out 2011 Norway attacks#Reactions? The main article is ~~over~~ just about 200KB long. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because expanding the problem will not make it any better. The main article's size is irrelevant; it is actually one of the best articles on a modern terror attack that I have seen. Kudos to the editors who dedicated themselves to making it more than a second-rate news piece.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What problem would be expanded though? When articles get too big they are usually split out, in this case the split off information would all be good referenced material. A nice summary can be placed on the main article for the reactions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – indiscriminate collection of information and does not meet WP:LISTN. Consists of WP:PRIMARY materials – the reactions themselves, which are routine and do not stand out in any way. No encyclopedic relevance. Similar articles have been deleted in the recent past, such as:

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:NOT and WP:LISTN Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has really changed since the last two AfDs. This is just an attempt to delete this article under the cover of darkness. This is a legitimate split based on the size of the parent article. This was especially notable given the rarity of an attack of this nature in Norway. Reliable sources, such as the BBC, covered international reactions to the attack. When will Reactions to the September 11 attacks or International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 be nominated? AusLondonder (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9/11 is not the same scale - both in terms of the event itself and in terms of subsequent wars. Reactions to presidential elections might have a chance for deletion - though not all reactions there are always trivial.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder "under the cover of darkness"; what does that even mean? Come on, you are smarter than that to make such a baseless remark. Your WP:OSE arguments are unconvincing but I expected someone would try to invoke them for an AFD like this. 9/11 is on an entirely different scale than this attack, in its impact, response, and methods, while presidential elections are not even remotely similar to a terrorist incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that I meant long after editor interest in the Norway attacks has declined. Given the millions of editors we have, let alone readers, AfD attracts such a tiny amount of user participation. OSE has been used throughout the discussion (and others) to suggest that because other reactions articles have been deleted, this one should as well. The category Category:International reactions is filled with similar long-standing articles and I question if a one-by-one nomination is appropriate. Norway has a very low level of violent crime and this was an exceptional event (prior to the recent increase in terrorism in Europe) which prompted significant and notable reactions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO - such articles which contain mainly boilerplate sympathy reactions (which can be summarized as two lines in the main article as a show of support) - have a good chance of being deleted (as they tend to fail WP:LASTING & WP:PERSISTENCE (beyond a two liner of "everyone sent condolences")). In situations where there are more complex reactions - e.g. International response to Innocence of Muslims protests or International reactions to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present) - and you are covering an actual issue (as opposed to a long list of condolences) - things might be different.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete These international reaction articles are the epitome of non-notable, diplomatic/political routine; the only ones that matter in the long run are the odd ones, and those should be in the main article. The rest is clutter. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Editors are not trying to delete the topic from the encyclopedia, and there is no claim to a partial IAR deletion of just this one article. So this is a content issue outside the scope of AfD and WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating what are you talking about? There are six editors, not including myself, advocating for deletion. Even if they recommended, say a merge, that can and has regularly been handled at AFD. Are you trying to somehow change how AFD has worked for years? Because I doubt you will be successful at this venue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination states, "...this page...gathered quotes...to keep them away from the main article." That is a content concern, whether material should be here or there. Our policy is that any uninvolved editor can close this discussion and move it to the proper venue. Unscintillating (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating no it is part of my argument for WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Besides, you are only selectively quoting my rationale to support a statement that is still puzzling and not in sink with our procedures. And you are still ignoring the six other editors that advocate for deletion. AFD doesn't selectively ignore comments we do not personally like.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have established a history with me of standing strong in defiance of the force of reason. Unscintillating (talk) 17:24, 29 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) 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McKeever[edit]

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

Although a well-constructed article, I do not believe it meets the relevant criteria for notability. McKeever stood for election to the UK Parliament in the 2010, 2015, and 2017 general elections, and in the Northamptonshire PCC election in 2016, but was not elected in any of those contests, thus failing WP:POLITICIAN. He has received coverage in the national press, but this almost exclusively relates to a death threat he received in the aftermath of the assassination of Jo Cox MP in mid-2016, which fails WP:VICTIM since there is no indication of “historic significance … indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.” Aside from coverage associated with that event, he does not appear to have received significant and substantial coverage outside of local news sources related to his election campaigns which, as noted, were ultimately unsuccessful. The article was previously deleted back in 2008, but the subject hasn’t gained notability in the time since this article was re-created. Eloquai (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Frequent minor mentions in reliable sources, but not what I'd call a lot of substantial coverage. Most of the verifiable information comes from PR industry outlets. As Eloquai says, he doesn't meet particular sets of guidelines. I can't see how he meets WP:GNG either. Ralbegen (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeatedly defeated candidate for office who fails WP:NPOL. The coverage related to an alleged death threat he received does not contribute to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons expressed above, which I endorse without any problem doktorb _words^deeds 17:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not elected to any of these offices, so just a candidate. We don't list candidates for this type of office unless they are in some way notable apart from that, and I don't see that notability established here. Shritwod (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person has to win an election, not just run in it, to pass WP:NPOL — but this offers little to no evidence that he had preexisting notability for any other reason, which is the only other way for a non-winning candidate to get an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 28 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) 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Delisle[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only mentions and local WP:ROUTINE coverage for signings and transactions (plus a fluff interview with the local paper while with the Lehigh Valley Phantoms). Gets the most mentions just for being a minor part of trade involving Rick Nash. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing long enough in a well covered league and no individual awards. I would also say WP:TOOSOON but his trajectory for his recent signings and playing time in the lower level ECHL are not going in the right direction to get 22 more AHL games. Yosemiter (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nom here; there are no reliable sources presented that aren't routine sports coverage. Ravenswing 03:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything that would indicate they meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than the Nash trade I couldn't find anything of note about him.18abruce (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 15:32, 25 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Pobjie[edit]

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

Generally nothing note while on this page. Currently it is a stub at best, but nothing noteworthy about this person. (Yes, he insulted Dwayne Johnson. But even then that's still nothing and was ultimately reverted.) Fails WP:GNG. retched (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is a smattering of IRS about the subject but nothing sufficiently specifically notable. A lot of activity by the subject. Perhaps just TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Well known~~ Aussie comedian, writer, columnist, and author of a number of books ~~that get reviewed in the major Australian media, enough book review seem to exist to validate notability even if you discount the ones in media he has written for.~~ Unique name, just google him. At least one book is a collection of his New Matilda columns, the others are comedy that you may need to be form down under to understand. Note that strange page history; p[age created by an SPA almost a decade ago has been constantly edited by numerous SPAs who delete and add large chunks of text and sources. Nevertheless, Pobjie is ~~indubitably~~ probably notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well known how? What television specials has he done? What articles were written? Who has he written for? Why are 90% of these questions and sources only first-hand knowledge. Also, if he's well-known: WP:NPOV. I've seen similar level articles nuked for the same thing as WP:GNG. retched (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is dubious. The article is 8 years' old and still hasn't progressed beyond a poorly sourced stub. McPhail (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. (Just to counter the argument that he's a 'well known Aussie comedian', I'm from Melbourne and I've never heard of this guy.) Mentions in sources are nothing more than what you would expect for a semi-successful online writer. Cjhard (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Published books with Pan Macmillan ^[1] and Affirm Press ^[2]. Is regularly published in all major Australian media outlets including a weekly column in The Age. ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerMcGrodger (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Pan Macmillan is a $1.99 e-book through Pan Macmillan's digital-only publisher, Momentum and Affirm Press is a small, independent publisher. (And this is RogerMcGrodger's only contribution to Wikipedia.) Cjhard (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concur that the first contribution is a little bit sketchy. But it's not uncommon to seeing new people talk about this. Additionally I'll also concur that a single $1.99 ebook isn't exactly "noteworthy". Also with regards to the articles written, these are all op-eds. retched (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards the articles being op-eds, the article does not describe him as a journalist, just a well-known Australian writer. I came to this Articles For Deletion via a post on Reddit discussing it. RogerMcGrodger (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)— RogerMcGrodger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note. Shortly before this article was taken to AfD I semi protected it and had to revdel some BLP violations. I also removed a bunch of links to articles he has written, radio shows he has appeared on, etc. None of them seem to be third party sources so I don't think they are of much use to a notability discussion but I thought it was worth pointing out just in case. Jenks24 (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
revisit I jumped the gun a little - he googles particularly well this week for losing a wrestling match with Dwayne Johnson. Nevertheless, I continue to think KEEP, if only mildly so. I did a minor WP:HEYMANN, adding a sampling of the reviews of his comedy shows, and a little of the news coverage his tweets have gotten him in the Australian press. His books also get some press coverage, few full reviews, bu tshorlisted for a national literary prize. There is one 9 paragraph profile of him - a group profile of prominent Aussie tweeters (see: "World at their tweet"). Albeit, it is in The Age, the newspaper where he is a long-standing satirical columnist. And yet, do note that being a columnist in a major paper is a claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my point about his page having been subjected over the years to SPA edits, attacks and deletions over the years - and I do not refer to the recent, responsible edits by User:Jenks24. Pobjie is a comic does not fear to tred. One news article this week cited a tweet by an angry wrestling fan describing Pobjie as a "Grade D" Aussie comedian. Certainly, his rather stupid (IMHO) tweet to Dwayne Johnson has roused the ire of wrestling fans, apparently including occassional Wikipedia editor, User:Retched, who has made ~300 edits, almost all on the subject of pro wrestling. He created one article, on pro wrestling, and participated in one previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 WWE draft Lesson: Minor Aussie writers shouldn't mess with Dwayne Johnson on Twitter, Johnson has fans. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also his 2016 book was shortlistd for the Russell Prize (add link) Russell Prize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he is prolific; I've seen a few articles around by him, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage of him around. Failing to win a minor gong like the Russell Prize hardly strikes me as evidence of any sort of lasting notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles for deletion is for articles. Categories for deletion is where to nominate categories for deletion. In addition, no deletion rationale has been given by the nominator. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that it was "Cateogry" not "Category", which would be why it ended up at AfD not CfD. Anyway, it's been speedy deleted, so all's well that end's well. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for not putting it on the right log. Shaneymike (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cateogry:Musical groups reestablished in 2016[edit]

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

Shaneymike (talk) 18:09, 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) 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty McCoy[edit]

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

Non-notable author -- Longhair\^talk 17:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Longhair\^talk 18:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mere PROMO for self published author. No usable sources. None.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BASIC. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. PROMO ahoy! --Jack Frost (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Malik[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Being a professor doesn't mean to have profile on WP. He fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR; wrote and edited multiple books published with Uni presses. Here are sample reviews:

Islam in South Asia: A Short History By Jamal Malik. Hermansen, Marcia. Journal of Islamic Studies, Jan 01, 2011; Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 93-95. A review of the book "Islam in South Asia: A Short History," by Jamal Malik is present... more

Madrasas in South Asia: Teaching Terror? Talib, Mohammad. Journal of Islamic Studies, Sep 01, 2008; Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 426-430. The article reviews the book "Madrasas in South Asia: Teaching Terror?," edited by Jamal Malik... more

Book reviews: South Asia. Kozlowski, Gregory C. Journal of Asian Studies, Feb 01, 1998; Vol. 57, No. 1, p. 254-255. Reviews the book Colonialization of Islam: Dissolution of Traditional Institutions in... more

More are likely to be available, given that they been published with Routlege, Oxford University Press, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these are well-known works. If they were, then they must be critically reviewed and would have article on Wikipedia. There is no coverage in WP:RS and he fails WP:GNG. Can't pass WP:AUTHOR for merely publishing the books. Störm (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources by K.e.coffman. Mar4d (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep decently cited on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, chair with multiple well-cited publications. —Kusma (t·c) 09:26, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave (Powerman 5000 album)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. No sourcing found. Sources in article are PR or don't mention it at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Album is published by a notable artist, is covered in multiple reliable sources, and has had two videos published about it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Loudwire, Blabbermouth, and MetalSucks all covered it, and they're all on WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. If the album was a month or two out still, I'd probably argue for a redirect - the sourcing is a bit weaker than I'd usually prefer, and the 3 sentences of prose isn't usually worth having an article for. But it's out in four days, so I imagine it'll probably have the sourcing to meet the GNG in a week, and likely a charting position in 2 weeks - probably before this AFD even closes then. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources state it will be released in a few days from now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 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 redirect to Thirty Seconds to Mars#2015.E2.80.93present: Fifth studio album. Redirecting for the time being per WP:HAMMER. If, in the future, more information/RS becomes available, then would not be opposed to revert of redirect & improvement of article and/or rewriting of article. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Seconds to Mars fifth studio album[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER. Sources largely mention the album in passing at best. Too little verifiable info yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per failing WP:HAMMER. (No name, seemingly no track list yet, etc.) Spin out once it passes HAMMER. (The coverage that will ensue from the announcement of its name and tracklist will almost certainly be enough to pass the WP:GNG with an album of this caliber.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thirty Seconds to Mars#2015–present: Fifth studio album per WP:HAMMER - this stops another user recreating the article (which delete and drafting won't), then when the album is released, we can restore the content at that point as it'll be preserved in the history. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant as already covered to the same level in the band article. --Michig (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that since this is an eagerly awaited album already covered in sources, the odds are that somebody will think "hey, that article about new album's disappeared? Where's it gone?" and recreate it again. That just means either we have to G4 it (and potentially salt) or negotiate a history merge when the album is finally released. That sounds like a lot of work. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can easily protect it after deletion if that's really a concern. --Michig (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, usually any time something is a viable search term, we prefer to redirect. The title certainly seems like a plausible thing for someone to search for... Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:HAMMER. No release date, title, and track list; we should wait more verifiable information before creating an article about the album.--Earthh (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Way too early for an article yet. I think it's better to redirect for now until we know the name of the album and more importantly get the coverage from reviewers and see how it does well on charts. ULTRA-DARKNESS^{:) 2 CHAT} 18:36, 29 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) 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Rana[edit]

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

He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only appears to have had one role in a non-notable serial Spiderone 22:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and might be to soon. FITINDIA 06:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough notable roles to meet notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 27 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) 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Parsons[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - referees are not automatically notable, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find only very ordinary routine sports reporting. Nothing to suggest notability. Aoziwe (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, no referee is inherently notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a failure of notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 29 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) 17:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Docherty[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - referees are not automatically notable, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find only very ordinary routine sports reporting. Nothing to suggest notability. (The other KDs I found might actually be notable.) Aoziwe (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, no referee is inherently notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom having failed GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:11, 26 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bates (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has one marginally notable role, failing WP:ACTOR. The marginal role, Oha in Coming to America as Oha is listed last in the cast section; the character is not mentioned in the plot section. Otherwise, an unreferenced BLP; no reliable sources given, no meaningful coverage found. (Prior AfD attracted little discussion, resulting in a no consensus close.) SummerPhD^v2.0 12:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bit part actor totally lacking notability. It is sad articles like this survive so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 17 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) 15:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in news sources. Non-notable actor with minor roles. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drew G. Montalvo[edit]

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

AN old article which has been around since 2011 but has only one reference which is itself an interview with the subject. Searches found nothing reputable and reliable. No evidence of any notability. Much of this content is found elsewhere on the net without attribution and may well be copyvios. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor. But I came across this page yesterday after I added a link from a LeAnn Rimes album page. I then made a small change on this page. I was surprised to see this article as up for deletion when I went back to check my update. So I took it as an opportunity as a new editor to see if I could address the issue. It seems that there is a significant amount of supporting information specifically regarding the subject of the article's music production. I removed much of the promotional and hyperbolic tone of the article. I feel that the subject meets the criteria of notability. I would welcome any feedback on my edits. --BrainSprinkle (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite BrainSprinkle's efforts, the references are not reliable sources for notability purposes. The vast majority of them are music links for iTunes, etc. and the rest are either not independent of the subject or mere passing mentions in articles about some other artist or event. Neither WP:NMUSIC nor WP:GNG appears to have been met. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:39, 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 09:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Eggishorn's assessment, the subject does, in fact, meet WP:NMUSIC. The criteria for musicians and ensembles says that having a single or album on a national music chart alone may meet notability criteria. As shown on the Billboard chart history (citation 17) the subject has 3 charted singles on the Billboard Dance Charts. For the most recent single release, Billboard wrote an article about the song, the artists, and the impressive debut on the Dance chart (citation 12). I would also challenge the assumed trivial nature of the subject's mention in Billboard articles. These articles are written about very prominent artists like Beyonce, LeAnn Rimes, Blondie, Ed Sheeran, and Madonna and their charting on the Dance charts. The entry for Dance Club Songs shows that remix producers and remix albums are a primary way artists achieve success in dance music. Naming the top remixers in this context, while brief, would hardly be considered trivial. I would also ask why the iTunes links were dismissed? These links show that this artist has been featured on commercially released remix albums for a number of prominent artists and on a number of major record labels. BrainSprinkle (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 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) 17:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gopakumar R. P.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The RS do not establish Notability. The one item that might come close is the open call award at Saatchi Gallery were only a shortlist, not even a finalist. He references a MoMa [sic] project, but it seems it is just work he did during a MoMA education class he references in his education. Tate has no reference to anything though the link also references a class, so maybe that is it? A lot of the links are broken, don't mention him, or are not RS. On top of this, it is unclear if there is a COI. There is some unclear stuff about the images that were linked via Commons, but are deleted. Theredproject (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering I nominated this article the first time around, because I couldn't see anything of substance. Clearly Gopakumar exists and evidently exibits/participates in group exhibitions and events internationally. However, his only claimed achievement is being shortlisted in an animated gif competition. Exhibiting internationally does mark him out from the average amateur artist, but per se, participating in exhibitions is what artists do - they have to have achieved significant attention to warrant a write up in Wikipedia. On the basis of what we know (or don't know) of Gopakumar, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Sionk (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of our notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 29 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) 17:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Edgar[edit]

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

The article's subject has not received sufficient coverage from third-party reliable sources, in order to pass WP:GNG. It doesn't pass WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSIC. The article would need to be rewritten if kept for any reason due to it's tone and copy-paste issues. Kostas20142 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails all mentioned criteria Spiderone 09:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, insufficient reliable sources available to meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:07, 29 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) 17:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green Spaces[edit]

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

Obvious spam that is G11-eligible in my mind, but was declined as such so taking it here. This is excluded from Wikipedia as being an obviously commissioned work created in violation of our terms of use with promotional language that exists for the sole purpose of promoting the subject (WP:NOTSPAM/WP:DEL4/WP:DEL14.) It is referenced bombed, but does contain some in-depth coverage from the NYT's regional section, so might be notable, but the notability guideline is clear the simple passage of the GNG is not enough to guarantee inclusion if the subject fails WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook paid editor cruft; the references are mere mentions (which perhaps the NYT source being an exception) which do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, the terms of use violation is what tips this over the edge. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYT ref is indeed the best in the article and that I've been able to find myself. Even that though is about green share working spaces in general and not exclusively about this company. It's obviously created by an already-blocked sock too. SmartSE (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above, not enought references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 26 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagari Chhabra[edit]

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

Fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. This is the only substantive coverage I can find which still fails the threshold of notability. DrStrauss talk 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has not been alerted by the nominator to this Afd, therefore @Fredericknoronha:. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a lot more than that: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], and a few briefer mentions: [26], [27], [28], [29]. --Michig (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (1) is the one I have already cited, (2) is an affiliated profile, (3) is an interview in a Lifestyle magazine section, albeit from The Hindu, and (5) is more about the award she received than Chhabra herself. DrStrauss talk 17:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the references identified by Michig including the Hindu (several refs from that now) Freepress Journal and Sunday Guardian the subject passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see above. DrStrauss talk 17:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- in addition to the above sources, I found that her poems have been published in Literary Review. Passes the threshold of notability, in my mind. Samples:

"An Iraqi Girl Speaks." Chhabra, Sagari. Literary Review, Mar 01, 2009; Vol. 52, No. 3, p. 149-150
"In Gujarat, Again." Chhabra, Sagari. Literary Review, Mar 01, 2009; Vol. 52, No. 3, p. 147-148

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the excellent work above finding sources for this Indian writer. AusLondonder (talk) 07:39, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Fatima[edit]

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

Non-notable summer camp site. Page has not been sourced since its creation in 2015, and there is nothing to indicate why this camp is notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester. No evidence of notability to justify standalone article. Alex Shih ^Talk 12:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to a merger to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester article either. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge from history if anyone thinks there is something worth merging. I'm not a huge fan of merging minor things such as this into articles on dioceses, but I also won't put up a fight about it. I just think that we should actually have someone who wants to merge content and knows where it should go rather than merging because it is possible. A redirect allows a merge if needed while helping the reader out. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it just isn't notable enough even for a redirect, despite the connection with the church. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- might redirect or merge to diocese, as one of its programs, but probably better not, treating it as the NN thing it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Normally, I'd say WP:ATD argues for the redirect suggested above, but there's also another camp by the same name in NJ, so redirecting to the New Hampshire diocese would be misleading. Maybe a WP:DAB page for the two of them? -- RoySmith (talk) 04:37, 31 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 07:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ji-Yun[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/isufs00035095.htm Hergilei (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 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, Bobherry Talk Edits 12:22, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. No reason for a third relist. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawi (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, lack of coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 15:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the All Africa Music Awards nomination is true [30]. But there don't seem to be many other reliable sources out there outside the Nyasa Times. Richard3120 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs some discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:01, 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 07:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 12:22, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Bashyal[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Most of the sources are primary, written by the subject. No indication of notability. — Za wl 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not show notability, sources aren't very good at all. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable journalist here in Nepal. He has also written for international media like The Diplomat , Washington Post, Buzzfeed. And also he is the editorial of Nepal Magazine.So, since reliable sources are used for the notability of WP:GNGand since he has been writing and co-writing newspaper article for reliable magazines like Washington Post,this article satisfy the WP:AUTHOR guideline. AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 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 07:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 12:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The refs are only insignificant mentions or by-lines, and a performance award by an employer is not notable. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AUTHOR (the only reason given for keep) cannot cover person because he wrote for Notable newspapers, notability is not inherited. The lead section is also over referenced with this invalid criteria by citing all notable newspapers he wrote for, this clearly shows no WP:SIGCOV about himself per se–Ammarpad (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to establish his notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:34, 29 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 and redirect to Textile conservator. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric restoration[edit]

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

This promotional article, unreferenced since 2008 was written by a SPA to promote the International Dry Cleaning & Laundry Institute. A Google search turns up many ads, but no authoritative sources, particularly for specific assertions about insurance payments, and the like. Rhadow (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of that origin backstory has any relevance as to whether this is an appropriate article topic or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disappointing that a notable subject has been hijacked. Deb (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Textile conservator - this article is a waffle-filled piece of no merit (see WP:NOTESSAY, whilst the target article is much directly relevant. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that redirect, because of the relative article qualities. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify which !vote you'd be happy with, Andy? I guess you meant my redirect suggestion, but the lack of indent possibly made it a little unclear for the closing admin. Thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Textile conservator, of course. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 12:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & then redirect name only to Textile conservator. Unsourced original research; fails WP:HOWTO. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 26 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. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia B. Lee[edit]

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

Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namah Pictures[edit]

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

fails WP:NCORP 2 sources do not mention the subject and the 2 others are only passing mentions. Domdeparis (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The older sources do not mention the subject since it wasn't in existence back then; I cited them since they covered the background well and were written by independent writers. The lack of sources seems to be on account of the producers' apparent last-minute switch from an older company to this (newer) entity. I expect sources to build up over the next few months since the film in question will definitely be written about. Kryptik sunny (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. It would be better to create an article when the subject is notable and not because you expect it to be notable in the future. Domdeparis (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. It may be TOOSOON but the topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG due to a lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 26 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. Significant coverage (6 academic reviews from JSTOR) has been added since nomination was made and article has also been improved through the removal of original research. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Racial Contract[edit]

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

Marked as original research 3 years ago, still not rectified Nick012000 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in the article that is not referenced to independent sources (i.e. most of it) needs to be removed. However the question here should be - is the book notable? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep though bordering on WP:TNT. It's hard to tell in what we have which parts are Mills's ideas being recounted without citations, and which parts are the musings of the editor. That said, GScholar shows plenty of refs to this book and its ideas. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed several acres of OR, reducing a personal ESSAY to a stub. Article as it stands is based on citations to the book. However, iVoting keep because the book did get reviewed in academic journals. As it stands, the most I can say for it is that it is no longer an embarrassment to the project. Perhaps someone will turn it into a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added six academic reviews from JSTOR, which should be sufficient for significant coverage. If anyone wants more book reviews, let me know and I can dig deeper. czar 19:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to czar for the WP:HEYMANN sourcing to multiple academic book reviews I was too lazy to do. A decent article can be created from those reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources now demonstrate GNG. I took a class last year on the philosophy of race, and was given to understand that this is an extraordinarily influential work in contemporary race theory, an impression confirmed by the book's >2700 (!) citations according to Google Scholar. FourViolas (talk) 20:46, 25 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) 17:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soleman Idd[edit]

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

no effort to address the issues tagged in article since its creation MrMarmite (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The person's not notable, and there aren't any sources in it besides his government employee information. Additionally, the page itself is insufficiently encyclopedic in tone and structure. Nick012000 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a vanity page on an unremarkable entreprenuer. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 28 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) 17:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Press Cleaners[edit]

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

This article does not provide any statement of why this particular company satisfies corporate notability, and has a promotional tone. If the promotional portions were removed, not much would be left. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a recent start-up business, describing its funding and business model but without indicating a basis for encyclopaedic notability. The references are a mix of local and start-up coverage, and I am not finding better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. 512tech.com article relies on quotations/interview with one of the founders and is not an intellectually independent reference. The bizjournals reference relies on their website for information, fails WP:ORGIND. And the kens5.com reference also relies on an interview and fails WP:ORGIND. Overall, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - De facto advertisement for a newish, small-scale, run of the mill cleaning company. Should have been led off to die at PROD, probably. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional tone. Not enough evidence of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:14, 29 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. A Train^talk 07:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Joseph[edit]

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

No evidence of broad notability; third-party sources are either very local or are brief mentions. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable winemaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable female california winemaker - from refs in article + cursory BEFORE. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Promotional material should be cut out via editing - if need be the article could be stubbed down (retaining a short summary, the infobox, etc).Lalalalllla7 (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather odd that you straight-up lifted Icewhiz's rationale from here. Lepricavark (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can I get a royalty?~~ I also do not think this rationale applies here as this is not fulll of PROMO.Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Struck lest I get accused of LEGALing for a stmt made in jest. Cut AfD newbies some slack - commentator is article creator and has made contribution to a few woman winemaker articles.Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep although something could be said for merging this into the article on the winery; there doesn't seem to be any much independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Groundbreaking in terms of gender, cultivars, and movie portrayal - beyond the California coverage she has quite a few google book hits with a bio.Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I've reviewed the sources and they are borderline for GNG, some being interviews. However, there's some editorial content that precedes the interview, so passable. Not strong, but female winemakers are rare, hence the interest in her career. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 31 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 2003 Carolina Panthers season. The consensus about exactly where to merge to is not particularly strong and there is one suggestion to keep the page and rework into a disambig. The discussion on how to proceed can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 07:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiac Cats[edit]

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

"Cardiac Cats" is a generic nickname that has been used for pretty much any team with some kind of feline as their mascot. A google search shows this to be true. While there are some sources that explicitly label the 2003 Panthers the "Cardiac Cats," such as this book, the name has also been used for the Detroit Lions, Jacksonville Jaguars, Cincinnati Bengals, Arizona Wildcats, Auburn Tigers, Kentucky Wildcats, LSU Tigers, and Northwestern Wildcats, among others. This article could easily be merged into the 2003 Carolina Panthers season article. Lizard (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content and delete. Merge the useful content into 2003 Carolina Panthers season. These two articles cover precisely the same subject. It is detrimental to have the information split into two articles. Cbl62 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a stand alone article on this and far too generic and has been a nickname for many teams and there's even several it could be used for that it hasn't been ever used. Maybe a brief note in respective season pages but that's about it.--Rockchalk7 17 04:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the possibility of converting this into a disambiguation page and listing out the various teams that claim this name there (2003 Carolina Panthers season, 2010 LSU Tigers football team, etc.)? Would there be any point, or would it be too difficult to police which teams are actually worth putting there? I can see a scenario where any team that has a feline mascot and plays a random exciting game gets tossed in there. Probably not worth the trouble. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'd might as well list every team with a feline mascot, because it's more likely than not that such a team was referred to as the Cardiac Cats at least once. Lizard (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we'd have to have some sort of a litmus test to determine what actually would be worth listing here, and attempt to avoid just casual mentions throwing the phrase around. Probably a pain in the neck to police. I'm just thinking about things to possibly do here, because if this is deleted and not locked down, I guarantee you something else will get created here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. If that happens we'll deal with it again. Lizard (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nickname is too common to be an article for one particular team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But I have no objection to a merge of the content if others want to do that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content and delete. Even if the nickname's too common to work for one particular team, if the content of the article contains useful information on one particular team, I see no reason to waste it all. Nick012000 (talk) 09:14, 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. A Train^talk 07:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leandra Medine[edit]

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

pure advertisement, with overemphasis of personal life. If by any chance the subject is notable--which I doubt-- a proper article can be written, but the first step is to remove this one. PR should not be allowed to persist in WP and this article has been inexcusably here since 2012. DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Do you have an opinion about notability? Carrite (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO and OR heavy. Agricola44 (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional. Fuzchia (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Do you have an opinion about notability? Carrite (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There does seem to be some genuine coverage which would ensure WP:BIO is attained, and it is clealy promotional at the moment. I would think a heavy copyedit is needed. scope_creep (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is notable, based on the extensive reliable and verifiable sourcing about her and her blog. If there genuine concerns about promotional content, the next step is to fix the article, not delete it. None of the delete votes have mentioned notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is clearly notable - from refs in article + cursory BEFORE. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Promotional material should be cut out via editing - if need be the article could be stubbed down (retaining a short summary, the infobox, and pic).Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly promotional article, and she's not terribly notable to begin with.Nick012000 (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:N Bobherry Talk Edits 12:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)/[reply]
Changing to Incubate to remove WP:PROMO content due to that fact that the subject is WP:N Bobherry Talk Edits 21:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:NOT, I might change my mind if someone showed it could be fixed. Dysklyver 21:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly. Coverage from Cosmopolitan, Elle, the New York Times, Forbes, Business Insider, Huffington Post ... over the course of 4 years ... come on. This is not in doubt. Deletion, as they say, is NOTCLEANUP; or for those who don't like that essay, WP:DEL4, which is presumably the reason for deletion people are grasping for who are writing "overly promotional"; WP:DEL4 says "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" - whatever you think of the promotion, there is plenty of encyclopedic content. If you think it's too promotional, make it less so, but the subject has clearly shown itself to be notable, so per our policies, should not be deleted. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag any concern. Actually she passes WP:GNG and there are many reliable sources about her. Promotional tone can be corrected by anybody –Ammarpad (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't start to tell you how much I hate the Daily Mail quote in the lead. Fuck that paper and all its minions. That said, this is a clear and obvious pass of GNG on the basis of sources showing in the footnotes. Even the nominator fails to present a policy-based rationale for deletion, instead going the IDONTLIKEIT and SEEMSPROMOTIONAL route. Tsk tsk. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 29 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen[edit]

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

excessive detail for minor sub-pageant DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen for previous deletion.PRehse (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of FanCruft on this page. I issued a challenge to source the material or I'd delete it knowing that the businesses that run these beauty contests don't even bother keeping all this data on their own websites and the websites that do track some of this trivia are unreliable blogs and/or editable by anyone. Very few creditable reliable sources care anything about which pretty high school student from whatever town won a one day song or dance contest before going back to cheerleading and math class never to he heard from again. All the participants fail WP:NMODAL and yet the pageant fans treated these minor contests like they really matter and every contestant needs coverage on Wikipedia. Pageants are just a business. We Speedy pages as SPAM on MUCH more notable businesses everyday. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The gist of the AFD linked above was that it was too early to have state-level pages for that contest (hence the creation of one article for all states) but that time has long since passed. There are enough sources here for the article to pass WP:GNG. The more appropriate AFD to reference is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Ohio Teen USA which passed as keep in 2016 and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Rhode Island Teen USA. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Alabama Teen USA exists this is about Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen - the referenced AfD is the most relevant.PRehse (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The arguments for & against deleting this article are no different to the Ohio one regardless of pageant system. The Ohio one was referenced at a similar level to this one when it went up for AFD and was kept. If you look at the original "test case" I suppose you could call it for this, the pageant had only been around a year or two and had no yet attained the level of individual state notability it has now. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State level events are not notable, best to build a national article out properly. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well those two AFDs for a similar state pageant would beg to differ with you. I understand you have a subject bias but making blanket claims without considering the current level of sourcing is unfair. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:06, 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 08:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:SPINOUT. If there is concern that the Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants article should not exist, then let that page be nominated for deletion. But given that the article does exist, and given further that it reached a "keep" decision when nominated in 2015, it is now time to face the fact that it is becoming too large for a single article. Spinning out separate articles for separate sub-topics is appropriate, and using "by state" as the criterion is a reasonable way to do it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

spinning out separatearticles for subtopicsisappropriate only if the subtopicsare themselves notable, or, in special cases, the article wowuld otherwise be too long. Neither is the case here. The existence of agneral article does not imply thateverything mentioned in it is notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no disagreement about the policy -- the disagreement appears to be whether the parent article is large enough for a spin-out. I think it is. The spun-out article under discussion here has about 25 references, roughly about two per year covered by the table. If this good level of sourcing were to be applied to all 51 tables in the parent article, that would mean more than 1,000 footnotes. Is that not too large? And even if we were to make good use of multiple-use references, the number of footnotes would still be increasing by more than 50 per year. So if the parent article is not too large right now, it certainly will become so in the near future. Why wait? Right now, we have an editor who is interested in doing the spin-outs and is also willing to beef up the sourcing at the same time (and doing a good job of it, too). Instead of discouraging them from doing this work, let's wish them Godspeed and let them get on with it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in any way a major or significant competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - small pageant for sure. But plenty of good third party sources. So that makes me confident that the pageant is above notability tresholds.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 29 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bludgeon Brothers[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Notability not inherited from The Wyatt Family (where most of the article is copied from). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nikki♥311 03:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete topic should be a redirect. Lee Vilenski(talk) 06:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Screw it I changed my mind just delete it. No Redirect either. SSGeorgie (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I explained in this link the reasons to keep it. AdamSawyer(talk) 16:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful is not a valid keep argument. Nikki♥311 17:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more notable as part of the Wyatt Family than without them. Nickag989^talk 19:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to make an addition to the separation section of the Wyatt Family article and redirect this article to that section until the new team is independently notable.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 08:29, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Work and the Glory (film)[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:NFP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per its inclusion in this SLTrib top-10 list. ~Awilley (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Coverage in the above-linked The Salt Lake Tribune article is not significant coverage at all; it consists of two short sentences. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Rotten Tomatoes, the film received reviews from critics in mainstream newspapers such as the Boston Globe, Detroit Free Press, Seattle Times, and Orlando Sentinel. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — as noted by the above editor, the movie did receive national reviews, albeit mostly poor ones, but good reviews are not a requirement of notability, and it certainly had broad enough release and sufficient audiences to be sufficiently notable for an article here. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:33, 29 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. Meets WP:POLITICIAN as is major provincial party leader who received significant coverage by the Canadian media. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dougald Lamont[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to Manitoba Liberal Party leadership election, 2017. The election that was won by the individual was not a general election, but a party's internal election in which 600 party members voted in the second ballot to determine the outcome. Don't think this qualifies as meeting WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first deletion discussion occured when Lamont was simply a candidate. He subsequently won the leadership election and is now leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party and is therefore notable and passes WP: POLITICIAN, particularly as the party has seats in the provincial legislature. Nixon Now (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We went through this the last time the Manitoba Liberal Party leader was elected (see:Rana Bokhari). In this case this convention was covered live till the end by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CTV News, Global News, Toronto Star, Winnipeg Sun, and Winnipeg Free Press. In the end this is also the leader of a political party that is polling third in the polls and second in the city of Winnipeg. I would argue that there is significant media coverage of this individual and his party to warrant the inclusion of the article. See points two and three of WP:POLITICIAN. Krazytea(talk) 03:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nixon Now (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Nixon Now (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even as the nominator the first time, when his notability claim was limited to being a candidate in a leadership election he hadn't won yet, I entirely accept that now that he's won it the notability equation has changed. We do accept the leadership of major political parties as a notability claim, regardless of whether the leader is actually part of the party's elected caucus yet or not, as long as the article can be sourced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG rather than unsourced insider info or campaign brochures. The fact that it was an internal party election rather than a general election of the voting public is not the make or break condition at WP:NPOL — notability is not conditional on the kind of election involved (except in the isolated case of "everybody on city council gets a turn" mayoral rotations) or on the number of people who actually voted in it, but on whether or not it resulted in the subject holding a notable position. This certainly still needs further work before it can be assessed as a good article, but it's already about as good as can be expected for a person who just won the leadership three days ago — further coverage will come, because this is a major party which holds seats in the Manitoba legislature and thus the media will pay more attention to its leader than they would to the leader of some minor fringe-wacko party.
And as for the initial attempt to speedy it on G4 grounds, nominator is advised that subsequent recreation of a previously deleted article is not an automatic G4 in all instances — there are plenty of cases where a person's notability claim and sourceability has changed in the intervening time, such as a person who was only an election candidate at the time of the initial discussion but then won the election in the interim. G4 only applies if the notability claim and sourceability remain identical to the first time out, and not if circumstances have changed since the prior discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be sufficient coverage in independent sources to clear WP:POLITICIAN. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am in favor of automatically keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, regardless of size or ideology. This is the sort of material that our readers have a right to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you want to consider this an IAR argument, so be it, but I believe that it is a majority view at AfD. May well additionally pass GNG, I will leave my argument there, however. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 29 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Errand of Angels[edit]

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

Per source searches, this film does not meet WP:NFP. Available sources are primary, and not finding significant coverage in independent reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this film's inclusion in this Salt Lake Tribune's top-10 list of LDS-related films. ~Awilley (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Coverage in the above-linked The Salt Lake Tribune article is not significant coverage at all; it consists of two short sentences. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a full article from the other large regional newspaper. I'm actually not well-versed on film notability guidelines. Is there a certain number of sources/articles/reviews that typically makes something notable? ~Awilley (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Awilley has indentified multiple cases of coverage in indepedent coverage. Also I found this [31] review from the BYU Studies Quaterly, a reliable, scholarly, peer-edited publication that reviews works from an academic perspective. Most reviews are of academic books, so the fact that this film received a review shows that it was respected in certain circles. Here is another review by Meridian Magazine [32]. None of these publications are in any way controlled by Vuissa, and although a few are controlled by the LDS Church, which also owns Excel Entertainment that distributed the film, Excel Entertainment's leadership itself has no control or power over the decisions made by any of the other LDS publications involved as citation sources. I'm not sure how reliable of a source dove.org is, or how comprehensive their level of reviewing is, but here is a review by them [33].John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 29 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. A Train^talk 07:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halestorm Entertainment[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches, which are providing passing mentions and primary sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP guidelines. No inherit notability based on researching the subject. Comatmebro (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly needs citations, but the company's portfolio includes 10 bluelinked films. And here's an example of an independent secondary source (newspaper article about the company). ~Awilley (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- notability is not inherited from the notable movies; there's got to be separate notability, which the article does not provide. I'm unable to locate sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Does this NYTimes article meet the criteria? How about Washington Post? ~Awilley (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article meets WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. It's a brief piece which reads like a human interste story, highlights the executives hopes and aspirations ("Now Hunter and Hale are hoping to entertain non-Mormons as well") and is based on an interview with them:

"This actor really goes off," he said, laughing, "and everyone's probably thinking: Oh, what's HaleStorm doing? They've gone to the dark side! I have to apologize all day long."

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Awilley has demonstrated broad coverage of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Awilley' sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- Change to "keep", upon further consideration: borderline, but has potential; produced notable films and is important in its niche. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 31 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. No consensus whether to keep or merge, and both sides made good arguments. However, neither outcome would require an open AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Less-active Mormon[edit]

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

Per source searches, this topic has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many of the links to searches for sources above work better if you use related search terms other than the article's title. (Try "Inactive Mormon" for instance.) In any case, I think the sources used in the article demonstrate notability, particularly the "Activity in the church" entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and this essay with a bibliography full of other very relevant scholarly sources including this article, this book chapter, and this scholarly article, just looking at the first 5 entries. In my searches I also found a lot of recent work by Jana Riess, a scholar looking at downward activity trends in Mormon Millennials. (Here's her being interviewed on a radio program.)
Aside from all that, the fact that less-active/inactive Mormons account for a majority of Mormons worldwide, I think the subject matter is notable, though needing expansion, and probably too detailed to include in the Mormons article. As for the inevitable OTHERSTUFF argument, see Lapsed Catholic. ~Awilley (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Awilley: This source has some content, but other sources all seem to cover disaffiliation and disengagement, as in entirely leaving the faith/church, rather than being "less active". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: That's part of the problem. "Inactive" and "Less-active" are used interchangeably. "Inactive" is probably the best description of what people are actually doing, while "Less active" was the term more often used in church literature to describe "inactive" people. I wouldn't oppose moving the article to "Inactive". ~Awilley (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is totally about disaffiliation and disengagement, although it could use significant cleanup to make that point. At the moment it is focusing too heavily on a definition, when it should be about a full topic. There is no shortage of good sources for this topic and related topics, and given that this is a relevant issue, it is notable. That being said, obviously the church would like this covered up, so if this is deleted, no complaints. Dysklyver 08:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the main LDS article and start a section on membership numbers. There's no mention of numbers that I can see, and this would make a good start on such a paragraph. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Geographic_distribution_and_membership for the relevant section that mentions some numbers but not percentages (this needs to be fixed). Also see Mormons#Latter-day_Saints that is a fairly direct summary of this article. But it's not a problem to have some material duplicated across articles (WP:NOTPAPER) and it would be impractical to merge all the material in this article. That's why I broke it out in the first place, to have a place where it could be discussed in more depth than is allowed in a top-level subject article. ~Awilley (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - in its present form, it is difficult to justify its existence. Deb (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is WP:DICTDEF currently, and it's hard to see a significant amount of material existing on the topic. Mormons#Groups_within_Mormonism is an acceptable target, but I have no strong preference as to the target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A little bit towards the dictionary definition side of things as the piece now sits, but (much to my surprise), this strikes me as documented, encyclopedic treatment of a defined category of LDS church membership. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 29 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 sources located, so delete. Will undelete on request if sources located, just ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Thirty[edit]

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

Breaks WP:NOTDIC. Could go into wiktionary, or merge back to –30–. Batternut (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to –30– iff this is a thing; the cited reference does not mention "no thirty". Otherwise, delete. Cnilep (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it does mention "Thirty" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_Thirty Brobof (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with –30–. Dysklyver 09:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources that actually use this term are found. The only source cited uses –30– but not its opposite, "no thirty". If sources are found, merge to –30–. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:59, 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 redirect to List of Bionicle media. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle Super Chapter Books[edit]

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

While there is coverage of the Bionicle universe overall, there is not the in-depth coverage of this particular series to show that it meets GNG. Right now this article is little more than fancruft, sourced by two primary references, and two non-reliable blogs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - This is the last book series covering events in the 1st Generation Bionicle Universe. It is every bit as notable as Bionicle Chronicles, Bionicle Legends, and other similar book series. This is especially true since this series involves the last Bionicle film, and because it also describes the conclusion of the 1st Bionicle storyline. For articles that describe books like this one, there usually aren't that many outside sources that can be cited; the only places where sourcing would actually be needed are for any claims in the article that would need a reliable source for verification. (The blogs are reliable enough for use because they often get their information from the Bionicle author himself, or from the LEGO technical team.) This article has relatively few of those claims, and nearly all of them have been sourced. As a number of users have told me in the past, most Wikipedia article content in general is unsourced (and much of said content is WP:OR), that being said, there's no reason to delete the article outright just because it has a few sourcing issues or some write-up issues. If we deleted articles every time they had serious sourcing or coverage issues, most of the articles on Wikipedia would have been deleted a long time ago. If there's an issue, it should be fixed, and other users should be brought in to help with such issues if needed instead of simply nominating such articles for deletion. Also, the perceived "lack of notability" is completely debatable, and actually depends on the readers' point of view. That being said, opinion should not be a fact in this article's fate. Technically, this series is as notable as the other Bionicle book series (some of whose corresponding articles have worse sourcing problems than this one), so that in itself is enough to warrant the existence of this article. The reason why this series's name may not be so notable is because that name was never formally printed on the books, but this has no bearing on the notability of the content. Instead of jumping the gun and putting up an article for deletion if it had tons of problems, those issues should be addressed and fixed. I have personally seen multiple other articles along the same subject line with similar issues in sourcing, write-up, and possibly other issues, why not delete them all? The only articles that actually should merit deletion are those that so broken up that they cannot possibly be repaired in any way (aside from pure vandalism or copyright issue article). None of Wikipedia's articles became perfect overnight, and most of them are far from Good-Article standards. Instead of reaching for the deletion gun, we should actually work to improve this article to meet Wikipedia's standards. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see that WP:NOTABILITY states that deletion should be the last resort for an article of uncertain notability, which this article is not. Try looking up the books detailed and Bionicle: The Legend Reborn, they are mentioned in a number of places on the internet (especially the movie). LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a mention by a kid's book list [34]. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bionicle media. Obvious and blatant fancruft that fails GNG. The above comment is essentially a longwinded appeal to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and makes no legitimate argument against deletion. For that matter, the like articles mentioned are also clear candidates for deletion. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Bionicle media. Nothing indicates these particular books are notable; the argument to keep above is a series of classics from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --RL0919 (talk) 02:47, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Nicholas Wilkinson[edit]

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

This BLP has been tagged since August 2011 as being poorly sourced, with only a brief BBC News article from 2002 and a Guardian editorial from eight months ago (plus a further dead link): it has also been tagged for nearly a year as having a CoI, with a large proportion of the edits being by User:LouisLePrince, who has failed to respond to a comment on their talk page enquiring as to whether they are the subject of the article. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would normally argue that the Guardian and BBC are good reliable sources and anyone who says otherwise is being silly and AfD is not for cleanup. However both sources are about his films, neither are about this person at all, barely more than namechecking and it's not possible to build an article from them. Dysklyver 09:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough evidence in my view that he is notable enough. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:36, 29 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. Merging as an alternative was discussed, but not conclusively. In any case, merging does not require an open AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tantive IV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An individual spaceship from Star Wars. Source coverage is non-independent or superficial (WP:GNG). Such content is better suited to fan wikis (WP:WAF). Sandstein 15:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple news sources (see Find Sources template, above) Cover this fictional element in the context of the tie in between Rogue One and Star Wars (You can call it 'A New Hope' if you want to; I decline). Further, a merger of some sort--into either movie or some other Star Wars article--is preferable per WP:ATD-M. "This belongs on a fan wiki" is not a reason for deletion, but really part of WP:NIME. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even the rocks is Star Wars could probably pass GNG with plenty of coverage, this is really part of the ongoing argument about how much popular culture is allowed in Wikipedia. Dysklyver 09:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not opposed to merge if a decent target article is proposed as candidate. 01:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This opinion lacks an argument why the article should be kept. Sandstein 10:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reject that it is a GNG fail. Artw (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing is sufficient to meet the GNG and out of universe context is sufficient to prevent the content from being unencyclopedic "fancruft". Eluchil404 (talk) 21:28, 30 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. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and at least a theoretical potential to discover print sources, which, if they exist, would support clear notability for the topic. bd2412 T 14:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

1897 Indiana State Sycamores football team[edit]

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

There isn't enough information to justify having a stand-alone page on this season. "no records remain to record the scores or even the results" power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indiana State Sycamores football unless someone can track down the results. WP:NSEASONS says that redirects are preferable to deletion for non-notable seasons. Smartyllama (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existing content can be merged somewhere else but I don't think a redirect is a good idea. Not only is it a questionable search term, redirects are too often hijacked. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we typically keep season articles about college football programs. I would have no objection to merging into a decade or other grouping of several seasons if someone wants to do that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close without action There is not a deletion problem here, there is an editing problem. Reasonable people have come up with the structure that is here, and added their WP:OR that more sources are not available. The editing needed to remove the WP:OR is obvious, and if there is a better organization available than one year per article, then re-organize it. Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles on individual seasons of collegiate football teams are all notable: each game has been covered in the press of the participating universities and the home and away towns, insuring passage of the GNG, which calls for multiple instances of published coverage. Carrite (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator and at least one other person opines that "unless the results can be tracked down, the season is not notable. The problem is that neither the Terre Haute Star nor the Terre Haute Express are digitized as part of the Newspapers.com database at this time. This does not mean the papers were never produced or that they have not survived, only that they are not yet digitized for ease of access. Carrite (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Terre Haute Semi Weekly Express is available at newspaperarchive.com. Searching that paper for football, I find about 30 results. One referred to a game between the local high school and Rose Polytechnic teams. I don't see mention of Indiana State or Indiana Normal in any of the articles. I agree that their may be enough material to write an article about the team and I encourage anyone interested to check newspaperarchive and (if they have access) genealogybank, but I don't find anything. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [35][36][37][38][39][40] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lack of game results is certainly an obstacle to development of this article. However, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1883 Carleton Knights football team (concerning a Division III program), this AfD concerns an NCAA Division I program. It is not unreasonable to believe that decent season articles can be built for most Division I programs. Further, Carrite's comments about the Terre Haute newspapers (and perhaps other non-digitized newspapers), as well as WikiOriginal-9's preliminary research uncovering an article reporting on the results of at least one of the 1897 games, suggests that editors should be allowed to continue developing this article. Also, and like Unscintillating noted above, a possible reorganization (perhaps a single article covering Indiana State football from 1896-1909) could be considered. Cbl62 (talk) 14:54, 27 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Shark (song)[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't a collection of memes, no sustained notability. DrStrauss talk 20:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Oh it's a cartoon shark. That's disappointing. Generously, this one is WP:TOOSOON, if there's sustained coverage in the future it may be notable enough for an article. We don't even have a standalone article for Left Shark, which should give one a good idea of the high standards for comedy shark articles on this encyclopedia. A Train^talk 11:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, I have heard at least 3 versions of this song, maybe more. A combination of having a 4-year-old grandson and having worked in pre-K for 4 years. However the first version I heard was on a CD, although it was a little different than the online versions, starting with "row your boat" or something like that. This actually makes me think the research on this is sub-standard. I first heard the song in late 2013, so it is not as immediate as some of the sources suggest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Baby shark" is even played on radio stations in the Philippines. — BSrap (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2017 (PST)
Comment There is this Forbes article [41] which says it traces the history of Baby Shark, but it has deeper history than this. As I said, I know I first heard the song in 2013 from a CD. Pinkfong did not invent it. After thinking I remembered that the CD was by the learning station. A quick internet search showed me this [42], which was posted to Youtube back in 2011. It would help if people reporting on child-related phenomenon talked to people who actually interacted with children.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple internet search showed lots of scout related websites reccomending "Baby shark" as a good camp song. I think if someone cared, they would push the history of baby shark back a lot further than 2011, although I have to admit never having heard it before 2013.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well this book [43] Music, Dreams, and Coming of Age in the Heartland mentions the song Baby Shark on page 42. That book went to press in 2007.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found versions of this song in the online Girls Scouts campsongs and another version here [44] and several more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here [45] is the Kansas 4-H songbook, published by Kansas State University, that has a version under the name "The Shark Song".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This [46] 2011 history of Camp Cory namechecks "Baby Shark".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might be the most scholarly reference yet. [47] it is from the book Yo' Mama, Mary Mack, and Boudreaux and Thibodeaux: Louisiana Children's Folklore and Play by Jeanne Pitre Solieu.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Baby Shark shows up in the 2012 book "Drama Soup which is a collection of over 100 warm ups for drama. it appears on page 27.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The song also appears in the book Hamster Heroes to the Rescue: The Mystery of the Shadow in the Yard & Retirement, a fictional book published in 2012.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This book [48] indicates baby shark as a classic at Church retreats in Kenya.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like some of the stuff people have found here shows that this meets notability guidelines. Maybe work some of it into the article, if it isn't already there? Nick012000 (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep John Pack Lambert has commented many times (dunno why, he can just edit his first comment), I rate him as the most shocking deletionist, so for him not to vote delete is encouraging. A quick check of what he found suggest this article meets WP:GNG. Dysklyver 09:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Per John's commentS. Bobherry Talk Edits 12:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John rescue effort , wide viewership it received and the fact that a reliable source reported about that Ammarpad (talk) 00:42, 30 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. The only unstruck keep argument seems to be somewhat WP:POINT-y. A Train^talk 07:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles F. Lynch[edit]

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

No real references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete several orders of magnitude below the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep.~~ He's a university professor[49] who holds a position that may meet WP:ACADEMIC criterion #5. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: He's a professor at a university. His job title is "professor". That position is not enough for criterion #C5. If his job title were "University Professor", it might pass that criterion, but that's a different title than the one he has. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: There is no such job title "University Professor" in existence. "Professor" is the highest professorship title at any university (with Assistant and Associate Professor below). I brought up that title not to suggest notability, but only to indicate that WP:ACADEMIC is applicable. I erred in naming C5 as applicable. I was referring to his title of "Medical Director" of the State Health Registry of Iowa, which might qualify for one of the other criteria, like C3, C6, or C8. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is such a title; at my university, it is above "Distinguished Professor" and is held by very few people; see e.g. [50] for one. In the German system, it is the standard English translation for Universitätsprofessor, a step above Professor. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Interesting. I come from a family of academics, and none of the institutions in which my family members worked have that title. Come to think of it, my Dad became "Professor Emeritus" but I think that's a post-retirement title. In any case, I'm still wondering if the title of "Director" would qualify under any of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That depends entirely on director of what. The only WP:PROF criterion that it would fit is #C6, "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". But I think the state health registry of Iowa is not an academic institute at all, so you would have to rely on WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i concur - certainly there is such a title at the vast majority of universities, especially top-tier Carnegie R1 universities although yes, the name may vary slightly with "Distinguished" or "University" or even "Distinguished University" professor being common. To cite an example - since sources are so important: ^[1] says "University Professors are selected for internationally recognized eminence in their fields", wish in fact is exactly notability within the wider academic world. Anyone (almost) can become a professor, that is more about longevity than notability. And any professor who retires (almost) can become emeritus. There is nothing notable about that. Many or most academics become professor eventually.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal

(talk) 13:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion does not meet WP:NPROF with the given evidence of position/relevance. Dysklyver 09:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF Does not meet #C6 or #C5 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WTF! A cricketer makes a single first class appearance and gets an article. Lynch publishes a paper on cancer that is cited 1600 times, and people spit. Total citations according to Google Scholar 30,000 [51] He's a full professor since 1998. Rhadow (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He may be very notable, but the article doesn't say why. Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We keep articles on notable subjects regardless of whether the article says why. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Adard[edit]

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

No establishment of Notability. No RS. I did a search, and all that comes up is Agora Gallery, which is a known vanity gallery that charges quite a bit for exhibitions, and also offers to work on artists' web presence. Theredproject (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I trimmed the self-publisshed, youtube, Facebook and linkedin 'references'. I also trimmed the links to the Agora gallery used as refs. From their site: "We offer several representation options, starting from $3850, which can also be paid in installments." That means it is paid promotion. Overall there are not adequate references to establish WP:GNG, let alone WP:ARTIST. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - Innovation potential Would it make sense to add the description of the hardware/software (the innovation in digital flow art) used: Video loop device is embedded device (currently Rasspberry Pi 3) with custom developed software for playing produced digital art from Stan Adard. In production time digital art is uploaded to video loop device and encrypted, so digital art is protected against unauthorised distribution. Device also has illumination sensor and it can power off display at night time - like real picture, you can't see it in the dark. — Ppinia (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no .96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:18, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katiana Balanika[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable singer Quis separabit? 00:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any reliable, indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails to establish notability and I can't find any good sources within an online search therefore appears to fail WP:ENT. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ACTOR which is clearly not met. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:31, 30 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.

^ https://provost.uchicago.edu/initiatives/university-professors

[1] ttps://www.panmacmillan.com.au/search/?contributor=ben-pobjie

[2] ttps://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2017/05/25/90810/aussie-aussie-aussie-questionable-histories-of-great-australians-ben-pobjie-affirm-press/

[3] ttps://muckrack.com/ben-pobjie/articles

[4] ttps://provost.uchicago.edu/initiatives/university-professors

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]