Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 September	14 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AYAFE[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP without explanation. This is an article that fails both points of WP:N: it doesn't meet our sourcing requirements, and even if it did, it is exclude as advertising by WP:NOTSPAM. The only sources in the article are to official groups, and when I did my BEFORE check, I didn't find anything that would rise to the level of GNG when considering in the light of the restrictions of WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organizations like this need to meet WP:CORP criteria for inclusion, and this org doesn't seem to merit an article here. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH due to a lack of in depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability --Whpq (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Desbiens[edit]

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

no evidence of notability. A speedy was unaccountably denied by another administrator DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I came by expecting to find he directed videos for his cousin's band or something, but holy moly, he is legit. E.g, the video for Beautiful Now on YouTube has over 100 million views. (All this probably explains why speedy was denied.) Yet I'm having trouble finding sources showing notability, though I certainly see mentions of him.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The number of views garnered by a YouTube video has nothing whatsoever to do with any Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not in any direct way. However, when a youtuber is extremely popular, it makes it more likely in practice that mainstream news coverage exists which would pass WP:GNG. That possibility is plainly attenuated for the director of music videos, if this case is representative.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we still can't keep an article just because somebody assumes that adequate reliable source coverage probably exists. If nobody shows any evidence that the required depth of reliable source coverage does exist, then the number of views the video got provides no exemption from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying otherwise, Bearcat, at least in this AfD. I didn't title my comment "delete" only because I would wait to see if someone found sourcing, but the content of my comment currently is an argument for deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's potential notability here if the article were properly sourced, but there's nothing here that hands him an automatic must-be-included freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. There's also a partial conflict of interest here, as the article has been edited by User:Jodebdirector. No prejudice against recreation if and when he becomes more sourceable than this, but nothing here allows him to keep an unreferenced article just because he and his work exist. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think we need to be consistent here. If the notability threshold is media coverage, then this fails. I did hunt down some minor coverage [[1]][[2]][[3]] but it's not enough. The limited coverage mentions a potential upcoming feature film, so let's call this WP:TOOSOON and see what happens when the film comes out. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again an issue of borderline notability. Good list of very notable music videos that they directed however confirms notability.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me reiterate that they have worked on some very notable music videos that I even already knew before.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the above editor was just blocked for serial keep bombing numerous articles in rapid succession. I don't know the proper policy or I would revert all of the votes. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be U Salons[edit]

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

Essentially an advertisement. Almost all the refs are mere notices about funding, and the others press releases DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising on an entity with no indications of notability or significance. Language includes:

The raised funds will be used to further consolidate Be U's position as one of the fastest growing tech enabled salon chain in North India!

Etc. etc. 100% promo. I'll request a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder at the Food Coop[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable, few local paper mentions, and half the refs are the author's blog. The biggest contributor to the article is user Brooklyngersh who is undoubtedly Gersh Kuntzman, the playwright of the subject of this article. JesseRafe (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real evidence of notability, no independent sources. --Ifnord (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement written by the playwright. Insufficient notability. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin McKenna (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, fairly minor local politician, part of the lower assembly of the state of victoria, one of many thousands. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the record, I disagreed with Aguyintobooks on a recent AfD, and now he is going through my creations, and has quickly nominated three for deletion. It's Wikipedia:Harassment and needs to stop. This is the 4th within an hour - one more and I'll open an WP:ANI. Meets WP:NPOL #1: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should accuse you of double standards, that is the opposite view to what you took on the Afd that 'started this'. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Councillors for a place the size of Truro are not considered to count under this, they are not legislatures. Perhaps best just to admit you lost your temper and tagged over a dozen articles wrongly, rather than drag this out? Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He ran the portfolio for transport for Cornwall, which has devolved powers. (provincewide office). (he happened to also be a councillor for Truro also, but that was secondary). Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficiently notable. In the Australian Dictionary of Biography. bd2412 T 21:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy Keep per WP:NOLY. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kelly[edit]

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

Only one source, which is a primary source. Can't find anything else. Went to the olympics but didn't win any medals. fails WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the record, I disagreed with Aguyintobooks on a recent AfD, and now he is going through my creations, and has quickly nominated three for deletion. It's Wikipedia:Harassment and needs to stop. As for the notability here, he is an Olympian, so meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. It needs more work and sources for sure, but WP:NEGLECT is not an argument for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HA#NOT (I have apologised). Olympians are only inherently notable if they win a medal. Generally winning a major award or being awarded a significant distinction gives assumed notability, but it is not infact the being a olympian which gives notability, it is the award of a medal. As this person does not seem to have won, I say not notable. (edit conflict) SPORTSBASIC only says subject 'is likely' to be notable, you would need to show WP:GNG first. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was repeated messages decided to annoy because I disagreed with you. I'm glad you have agreed to stop the harassment. Where is your evidence that Olympians are only inherently notable if they've won a medal? Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As well as WP:SPORTSBASIC, I would draw your attention to WP:NOLYMPICS: Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924). Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also surprised you only found one source - a quick Google shows several, even though he competed in pre-Internet times and most sources would be offline. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly inherently notable. bd2412 T 21:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant COPYVIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celtics-Raptors rivalry[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this is a neologism, and not an actual rivalry. ToronoRaptorsBasketball says they aren't a rivalry. There is a brief mention here [4], and another flat-out denial here, but I thought this would benefit from some input of some more sports-leaning editors. menaechmi (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this is a blatant copyright violation. menaechmi (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NRIVALRY. The bar for sports rivalries is very high, and needs to meet the GNG in spades. Even if this train wreck of a blog piece-masquerading-as-Wikipedia-entry was well written -- which it is not -- the tendency of the sports world is for fanboys (and bored sportswriters on deadline) to consider any two teams who've had a recent hardfought playoff series to have a Great And Enduring Rivalry, which is fatuous nonsense. No evidence that this alleged "rivalry" meets the GNG has been produced, let alone the number of high quality sources necessary to get past WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 23:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't be bothered to argue this one, looks like it would end keep anyway. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz (clothing)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I did a WP:BEFORE and although there lots of mentions on google, there is no significant in depth coverage in multiple independent sources, as is required in CORPDEPTH. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the record, I disagreed with Aguyintobooks on a recent deletion discussion and so he has gone through my articles creations and nominated four for deletion in the last hour - he can't even have had time to do a proper WP:BEFORE on them all. I'm hoping his harassment will stop so I have time to research properly myself before I fully comment. This company has 250 branches in the UK, is on most high streets of a reasonable size - the article needs work, yes, but it is notable and there are already reliable sources in the article, it will benefit from more. WP:NEGLECT is not a reason for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, given the clearly reliably sourced scope of the company. bd2412 T 21:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The October[edit]

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

Seems to be based on very recent speculation. See [5]. Seems WP:TOOSOON and doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFO. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 19:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. It does seem too soon for a standalone article, as I'm unable to confirm that production has begun. Also, it appears the name of the film is just October. gongshow talk 23:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is just a brief nine-word sentence, which, incidentally, is written in bad grammar. Vorbee (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFO. This article seems to be about a future film of an experimental nature and an article may be apopropriate when the film is in production but not at this early stage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joys Sebastian[edit]

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

Heavily promotional and a search for sources shows little independent, reliable coverage to suggest he passes notability guidelines for directors. DrStrauss talk 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROMO lacking credible sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP and WP:PROMO Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is promotional and fails GNG. Donald1659 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallie Meyers-Shyer[edit]

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

Non-notable subject who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR. Note that notability is not inherited from the subject's notable family members. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could be notable but author is failed to put the article as per standards. Must enhance the structure and add reliable sources Chrisswill (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to give the article time to collect sources. bd2412 T 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is the focus of a feature in yesterday's Los Angeles Times.[6] She's the director of a major new film. Of course the coverage mentions her parents but it's about her and her project. Time to get on with improving the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Yes, first film and all, but she's literally all over everything as a result: THR, NYT, LAT, WSJ, etc. NOTINHERITED is dead for this one. ATS (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: may I present this xfd as a textbook example of why we have maintenance tags, as opposed to making noms 2.25 hours after an article is created? Yes, it had the same effect, but even the most rudimentary of news searches quickly proved the subject notable. ATS (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROMO lacking credible sources and body of work to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is a film director whose debut film was released into 2,940 theaters just this past weekend. I have added some more information to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a director of a major Hollywood feature, Home Again (2017 film). Combined with her movie roles, passes WP:CREATIVE in my eyes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has reliable sources sig cov so passes WP:GNG as well as WP:ENT Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub, per the new film. Nice to be on the same side as K.e.coffman for a change! This might be a first. ;-) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McNeill[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. I failed to locate any significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the topic. McNeill has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and thus failing NACTOR. Most of the films and series listed in the filmography section may not be notable and none of his roles are significant (the closest one is being an ex-husband in Manchester by the Sea). He has been nominated once for a Screen Actors Guild award as part of a cast and has won two not-so-well-known awards but the ANYBIO criteria requires at least nomination of a significant award or honor several times. — Za wl 17:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per nominator fails GNG and NACTOR. FITINDIA 18:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agree WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject's roles to date are not significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR, and I'm not finding in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. gongshow talk 23:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to keep. bd2412 T 20:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Anderson-Minshall[edit]

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

Journalist/author whose book holdings number only in the single to mid double-digits (WorldCat). References are all web pages (many broken links). There is a trivial mention in NYT (a short quote), but main claim seems to be a number of non-notable awards, like "official community honoree of L.A. Pride". The article is filled with OR and was created by a short-lived SPA account 10 years ago. Seems like this is an article that the community should have a look at. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Keep per WP:GNG" seems basically to be what you plaster on every woman-related AfD. Do you have a script that does this automatically 🙂? Seriously, some amount of searching suggests she does not actually pass GNG because the awards are obscure, coverage is trivial, etc. Is there something I've missed? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Strange - I don't recall seeing your username before in AfDs related to women. If I had a script, I'd be sure to share it with you. ;-) Hmlarson (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources are adequate and achievements sufficiently important to meet the GNG threshold. 18:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Between the coverage and awards granted to this person, this does pass our thresholds of notability. The nom might not like an award by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, Golden Crown Literary Society or others, but that's their opinion and not related to our guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please to clarify what you mean by "nom might not like an award by..."? Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISP Setup Manual[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable book by non-notable author. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, i.e., enough reviews to write an article that does justice to the topic. (?) There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 07:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete. Promotion for a run-of-the-mill non-notable tech manual. Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy Babylon / I and I Survive[edit]

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

The song fails song notability guidelines. (gsearch) DrStrauss talk 15:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity Project[edit]

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

Originally kept in a 2014 AfD, but I think its worth seeing what the current consensus is on this non-profit. The claim to fame is being one of the first Y-Combinator non-profits. Unfortunately, the sourcing on it is significantly below what we currently expect of organizations under WP:ORG. The sourcing available is press release churn, non-reliable industry publications, and primary source interviews. In terms of revenue: $816,000 USD is pretty low as this type of organization goes. While that isn't a make or break on notability, it does suggest that this isn't at the level where we are missing something. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We Wikipedians should be ashamed of this article. On the day the first version was published, it said the Immunity Project was in Phase 1 Clinical Trials. If that were so, healthy human subjects were already getting an experimental HIV vaccine. That should have strained credulity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nevertheless, the article survived AfD (shame!). A month later, an edit exposed the scientific weakness of the claims. By then the article was entrenched.

Immunity Project said it intended to make a free HIV vaccine. To take a vaccine through clinical trials would probably cost a billion dollars. Immunity Project claimed to be a non-profit. They weren't and aren't. Any editor can confirm that. The IRS has no paperwork. They relied on another AIDS advocacy organization to handle the money and make annual filings -- for a one percent cut. That's where the $800K number came from, the total revenue including the other charity's traditional income stream. The cofounder and chief promoter of this venture has moved on to other things. The Immunity Project website hasn't been updated in a year. Let this be a lesson to all of us to be skeptical when we see a new article about a new organization ... even a charity. Rhadow (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete was a bit on the fence on this. The Nature News article has really substantial discussion on this, but there is nothing else of that quality. The rest is, as the nom says, PR churn and reaction to the churn. Even now. It is also really terrible that the article says that they are in Phase I trials. Per their website they are still pre-clinical. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonprofit Quarterly[edit]

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

With the exception of reference no.3 in the article, there is little on the high seas that I can see, which makes this pass under WP:GNG. 'Mentions here and there' scenario. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a poor wiki article written by a rank newbie, but this is a frequently cited standard reference and easily meets all notability requirements. It gets 4.5 MILLION web hits alone. I would also like DGG's opinion on this. Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I'm having some trouble identifying this with either of the two publications listed in Worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DGG: Indeed I saw something that had a very similar name to this, but seemed to me that it was not this at all. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @DGG and My name is not dave: There is only one "nonprofit quarterly" and there are no similarly named journals. As the wiki article notes, the print journal was launched in 1999, and the online version at nonprofitquarterly.org (noted in the wiki article) was added in 2006. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recognized that this might be the case, but the entries in worldcat seemed too sketchy to prove anything,, [[7] and [8]. DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It is indeed definitely the case, which is why I linked the two WorldCat listings in my comment to you and the nominator. Since there is only one entity by this name, are you interested in revising your "Uncertain" !vote? Softlavender (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what other evidence do you have for this? DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There could not be two unrelated concurrently running nationwide publications in the U.S. titled "Nonprofit Quarterly" both headquartered in Boston and both published by Third Sector New England. Both the online and print versions are known as "NPQ", as seen on the print version [9] and the online version: [10]. As the Wikipedia article states, the website version is at nonprofitquarterly.org. For more proof, check: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: DGG, I answered your question ^^^, but you don't seem to have this page watchlisted, so I am pinging you. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's probable, but I don't say positively in the absence of proper bibliographic records. I may be unduly skeptical, but most of my experience is European journals with complicated histories. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: So you are saying that there could be two unrelated concurrently running nationwide publications in the U.S. titled "Nonprofit Quarterly", both headquartered in Boston, both published by Third Sector New England, and both known as "NPQ"? Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying one could be a rival, split or precursor partial split or partial successor to the other. I've seen dozens of such cases, some in which the situation was not easily clarified, some of which each publication asserted it was the real one. What I actually think is that one is the online version of the other, or was named separately as an online version for a period. But the thing to do is get some evidence, not hypotheses. DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would you recognize as "evidence"? I gave 12 links above. And yes, of course "one is the online version of the other"; that is what the wiki article states, that is what all 12 of my links prove, and that is what I have been asserting all along. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clarify, and expand is the upshot of what Ive ben saying. DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is cited in books and journals. I think even I, a profit oriented fella, have heard of this publication prior to the AFD. Deletion is not cleanup. It isn't a great stub - but it is properly sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Furtado[edit]

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

Practically unreferenced. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Her book doesn't appear to have been the subject of a professional review, and her appearances, while verifiable to some extent have not attracted any noticeable in-depth coverage. Mduvekot (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With one reference to a worldcat page and nothing else this article fails [WP:GNG]]. Notability is not established. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. YouTube personalities do not get an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie just for existing, but must be reliably sourced as passing WP:GNG for having gotten media coverage about their youtuberness. And writing a book is not an automatic inclusion freebie just because the book can technically be sourced to WorldCat, either — notability as a writer also depends on reliable source coverage demonstrating a WP:AUTHOR pass. No notability for either endeavour has been demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airtame[edit]

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

small company producing minor devices. The only sources are notices of funding or product announcements -- or their own PR as in ref 8. Some references seem constructed so as to obscure the unreliable nature of the sources DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- with $2.6M in funding, the company is too insignificant to presume notability for this startup. 100% advertorial content. Created by an editor indef blocked for promotionalism. I'll request a deletion under G11; let's see if takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 F+W. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Light Books[edit]

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

No sources whatsoever (WP:ORGCRITE); does not satisfy WP:GNG; gives no indication of its notability. Lopifalko (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to F+W. This is a well-known publisher of art instruction books, but I am unfortunately finding very little in the way of secondary sources on the company--mostly in indices of publishers. Without substantial independent RS on company history, impact, etc., the topic doesn't reach the threshold of notability. That this is a publisher of art books and is owned by F+W is verifiable, however. This is also a plausible search term and there are a few dozen incoming links to the article. Hence a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to F+W; not independently notable but a viable search term as a publisher. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: F+W may be a well-known publisher, but what I thought was its website redirects to fwcommunity.com, which doesn't seem to mention either art instruction books or North Light Books. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC) I sit corrected. See the comment by Mark viking below. -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Light Books is indeed an imprint of F+W, here's what comes up if I search GNews:

Cool Home: Newport Victorian became artist's canvas | Cincinnati.com-May 18, 2017 | "Your Home: A Living Canvas," was set to be published by North Light Books, an imprint of locally based F+W, in 2008. ..."

So I think a redirect is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A better F+W link would be http://www.fwcommunity.com/community/fine-art, where North Light Books is mentioned --Mark viking (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to F+W. -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems the best option. I have found only three peripheral mentions. [21], [22] and [23] There doesn't appear to be material to base an article on. Mduvekot (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to F+W per the additional sourcing above. -- Dane ^talk 19:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted as advertisement 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qudini[edit]

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

I can't find reliable sources which confirm the information. My attempts to source the article indicate it fails any criteria at WP:CORP and WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising on an entity with no indications of notability or significance. 100% promotional article which is not suitable for inclusion. I've requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Specific thanks to Megalibrarygirl for her improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Henson Ernst[edit]

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

Fails author notability standards. No major reviews of her work nor any indication from the article or from a source search that her work has had an impact in her field. Please note the extended rationale I have given in reply to the first !vote. DrStrauss talk 16:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's questionable whether WP:BEFORE was made here especially in considerations to non-online sources of which will clearly be the case given the subject is from over a century ago. Like with past cases, there's near always something non-online and that itself is enough to take into account here, regardless of whether it's easily accessible. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: SwisterTwister, citation needed. Your argument boils down to mere speculation. DrStrauss talk 18:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, there's a considerably large number of library collections at WorldCat which shows significance towards WP:AUTHOR, and the fact the other sources similarly show information that wouldn't be as easily accessible, including archives, therefore is covered by WP:BEFORE. WP:Mustbesources is only when there would've been absolutely zero sources, which isn't the case here. For example, an easy search here proves this in the fact several sources are from the last century. WP:Bias specifically exists in these cases where we shouldn't quickly judge, and this too is covered by WP:BEFORE. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: SwisterTwister, I checked WorldCat (link) and there is little that satisfies the four points of WP:NAUTHOR.

widely cited by peers or successors - the WorldCat and Google Books searches show nothing other than either her own books or any significant coverage.
originating a significant new concept - little indication that she has done this either because that comes through third-party sources, few of which are available both in the online and offline varieties.
work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work - again, nothing but self-published sources or passing mentions.
significant monument - fails this too, no significant attention from museums or galleries.

I have noticed that on many of the AfDs you comment on prefer to criticise the nominator for not doing source checks instead of coming up with sources to the contrary. I have provided evidence as to why she is not notable through the lack of independent sources on WorldCat. Please cite sources to the contrary. DrStrauss talk 18:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that one of the examples of non-online sources is this, this and this, which I easily found; because the first is from 1939, it's fairly certain there was going to be others; there needs to be an allowance to find such sources like this, which can only happen if it's not nominated for deletion. Also, please don't ping as I'm watching the page as it is. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: the first two links are duplicates of each other. Literally, the same searches. It's less than a third of a standard thin newspaper column and gives no real insight into the impact the work has had on her field, I think claiming it's a review is stretching it. And it's the same story with the other source you cited: less than a third of a column in a local publication which is really akin to a passing mention. The fairly certain there was going to be others bit of your comment is therefore redundant. You've come up with what are essentially a couple of trivial mentions. I ask you again, please cite independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to Ernst to show her notability. Thus far you have failed to do this. And please do ping me because I'm not watching the discussion. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 19:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added 28 or so sources to the article that either review her work or describe her life. I also expanded it significantly. She was very well-known in the earlier part of the 20th century. Passes GNG and CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: well it does now but it certainly didn't when I nominated it. I am clueless as to where you managed to find those sources as my extensive searches in both Google, Bing and WorldCat gave nothing back. DrStrauss talk 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the sources on search engines, either. A lot of women from the 1800s and 1900s aren't searchable that way. You have to dig them out of a database that's usually behind a paywall, though the Internet Archive sometimes has sources for women from these time periods. In this case, I found the news sources on Newspapers.com. You made this nomination in good faith, DrStrauss. Women's history is really hard to uncover. If you're ever unsure about a woman's notability, ping me or any editor at Women in Red. Many of the members of that WikiProject are good at digging out sources and finding hidden history. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: will do! DrStrauss talk 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing was poor as nominated but has now been amply demonstrated thanks to the work of Megalibrarygirl. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Trump[edit]

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

No independent notability. Suggest to restore the earlier redirect to her husband's page, Eric Trump. — JFG ^talk 16:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect without deleting history per nom. MB298 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Trump as she seem doesn't get much independent recognition outside of her marriage to him. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Trump per SNUGGUMS, doesn't seem to have independent recognition. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Jim Carter 14:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I filled in some details and provided a reference...she was a producer of a long running national TV show, and she is becoming more and more visible as a spokeswoman for her father-in-law. And being part of the First Family of the United States in and of itself gives her Notability. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, notability isn't inherited (see WP:INHERIT), meaning that family affiliations on their own ARE NOT enough for somebody to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lara Trump is a well sourced spokesperson for the President of the United States and his reelection campaign. The quality of these sources are very strong. Patriot154 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: almost all of the cited sources deal primarily with Lara, not Eric or anyone else. The rest deal with the two fifty-fifty, which is still significant coverage, not passing mentions. These, and other such sources not cited in the article, establish notability for Lara. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not inherited, but in this case, publicity is. She's clearly a public figure, and there's enough coverage of her that she meets WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individually notable from Eric for her work as a spokesperson.LM2000 (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stancolac S.A.[edit]

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

The article was originally tagged as WP:A7. Speedy deletion was contested at Talk:Stancolac S.A.. The article makes no claim of notability and its only references are pointing to the corporate web and to a listing in a catalog where companies can pay to be listed. Neither is independent. and I could not find the needed in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources to meet either WP:CORP or WP:GNG. ~~Another issue that this edit indicates that there might a direct relationship between the author and the company and therefor a posible conflict of interest.~~ Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No evidence of coverage sufficient to pass WP:CORP. As an aside, the article creator has denied any COI on the article talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. "Coverage" is mostly the firm website, and its social media pages; besides that, only some listings exist. ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. -- Dane ^talk 19:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Men's spaces. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man pod[edit]

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

The subject of the article fails WP:SUSTAINED as a notable topic. It seems like just a flash-in-the-pan invention that will not see wide use. Even if it does, it is WP:TOOSOON. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but I think this falls into a larger topic of spaces created for men in or adjacent to women's clothing stores. Perhaps we should have an article on that. bd2412 T 03:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A merge/redirect to man cave for now, maybe? That's if the idea isn't too new. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also men's spaces, but that appears to be a wreck of an article. --Izno (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would work, as man cave implies that it's part of a home, and this is a different concept. So is men's spaces, which says it only applies to "non-westernized" countries._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited at Men's spaces to allow for those existing in Westernized countries too, though it may be accurate that such spaces are more important in many non-Westernized countries. --do ncr am 22:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to Men's spaces i suggest. These kind of men's spaces in the shopping environment do exist, e.g. I have seen waiting areas with men's magazines at some stores, but the "Man pod" name is not itself highly notable, separately, it seems to be one brand for such. --doncram 22:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "men's spaces". While you are taking it literally, the article uses it as more of a metaphor for "spaces associated with manhood". A "man pod" is ostensibly designed for men, but it can be used by anyone, without judgement, making it not much of a "men's space" beyond the marketing copy - it could easily be called a "game pod" and nothing of value would be lost. Compare and contrast that to a men's room, something with a far greater connotation of gender._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with Doncram. Also it is basically a 'small' man space, this does not mean it has to have a separate article claiming it is separate concept. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aguyintobooks: Again, there's a difference between something claiming to be a men's space and something actually being a men's space. The idea that a man pod should be for men is just a marketing gimmick and a somewhat misandrist one at that. Are they suggesting it would be of little or no utility to say, bored children, or women who want to relax while a man shops? And even putting anything about "man pods" in the article would be WP:UNDUE considering how non notable it is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address ZXCVBNM's concerns that the proposed merge target is unsuitable and maybe suggest different targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: - I wasn't aware that due weight neutrality was based on notability, or that the content of article had to be notable... Also it seems highly irresponsible to abandon children in the middle of a busy shopping mall, what is your point? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 18:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aguyintobooks:If you assume that there's someone staffing the booth keeping women out, then that person would also be able to watch any kids. If you assume nobody is staffing the booth then it would be open to anyone, the idea of it being men only is moot, and it shouldn't be a men's space regardless._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didnt realise they had staff, my bad. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say they had staff; I don't know either way. But assuming they don't, there's no way to prevent women from using the "pods". So... not sure how this is a "men's space" beyond them just saying it should be used by men._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - To ZXCVBNM, your comments to me and here indicate your concern that this "Man pod" space is not necessarily 100% perfectly enforced to only ever allow males to enter, while you suppose that other man spaces in other cultures are 100%. Hey, it doesn't matter. Clearly by the name of this it is meant for men. That is how it is marketed, that is its purpose, that is enough, so it is a man's space. And my guess is it is mostly used by men. If you wanted to go to extremes you could say that various men's sports are not men's sports, because there might not be uniform international application and enforcement of DNA testing and whatever else is needed according to your definition of 100% maleness, as becomes an issue sometimes such as for Renée Richards' participation in U.S. Open tennis. Some exception(s) to the usual does not mean we cannot call a space meant for men as being a "men's space". I mean, you don't want for the staff at the Man pod in the mall to be demanding people go through x-ray machines to see their gender-specific body parts, or anything else, right? --do ncr am 19:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with the above, this is basically a bit of marketing fluff with very little that's new or distinctive here (i.e. it's not notable). Merging will suit it nicely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee Cell Products[edit]

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

company no longer exists DC Bio2017 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 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 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DC Bio2017, whether a "company no longer exists" is not in itself a sustainable rationale for deletion. It would appear from your Draft:DC Biosciences Ltd that you may be trying to create an article under the firm's newer name - If so, a retitle would be an appropriate outcome? But please also note WP:DISCLOSE. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page seems to be fine, aside from a few citation issues. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the nominator does not advance any valid reason for deletion. If a rename is needed then that can be done without deletion. My impression is that the company is trying to treat Wikipedia as part of its marketing department. It is not: it is an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lidy López[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines, I only see a couple articles mentioning the person, but no substantial coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was debating about nominating this myself, I agree that it fails relevant notability guidelines. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, in fact some of the claims made in the article are totally unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, sourcing is questionable on this as well. Agree with nom - passing mentions but not substantial coverage. -- Dane ^talk 19:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ACTOR and WP:CS. Only credits are "himself" in unknown shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nagam Janardhan Reddy[edit]

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

Post deleting uncited content - not much remains. Cannot stay in Wikipedia in it's current state MK 14:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- He is a five term member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly.[24] Clearly passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.[25][26]. I have added some content to the page and a few sources. FITINDIA 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The consensus of the community has been that all legislators of a subnational government are notable (statewide/provincewide) WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is an MLA which is a representative to the state assembly. There are enough news reports available to document his political career. I will add more content and improve this article today.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NPOL easily. -- Dane ^talk 19:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not even sure why this was nominated, not only is he inherently notable per WP:NPOL, but a cursory search would clearly show he passed WP:GNG easily. --Muhandes (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel de Gruchy[edit]

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

This is not a notable individual. Most of the sources which turn up on a news search are general coverage of other events where he appears as a comment, or a passing mention. There is also general coverage of the 2017 general election , where he gets a balance mention. Neither are any good for demonstrating notability. The positions held in trades union, do not elevate him to being notable purely on the ground of holding the position. He stood for parliament, and lost, again being a candidate does not confer notability. This article fails to reach the required standard for demonstrating the individual is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs)

keep being a prominent member of the second largest teacher's union in the country is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Egaoblai: Stating a prominent member of the second largest teacher's union in the country is notable is nothing more than an opinion, please demonstrate this to be fact. Simply saying an individual is notable or a post is notable does not make it so. It must meet WP:N and be demonstrated to be such. There a hundreds of thousands of trades union world wide, what makes this post special? The posts held by this individual do no generate wide notability, simply because they do. The comment is nothing more than a keep !vote Sport and politics (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it may well be unfair but while we do often grant business leaders a certain level an assumption of notability, per WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, there seems to be no such policy towards labour leaders. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is and what isn't notable is normally always an opinion, I cannot demonstrate the notability of this article to be a fact just as you cannot demonstrate the non notability of this article to be a fact either. However, when it comes to notability, I'm pretty sure that we can find a CONSENSUS that holding prominent positions in large national trade unions is a sign of notability. As a rule of thumb, would we see that someone who was prominent in a equally sized business be notable? Better yet, the encyclopedia includes sports people for notability simply for having played one professional game. By those standards, a person who has been a member of a trade union would be notable. But this person isn't just a member of a trade union, but a prominent leader of an important one. Clearly they are notable according to these standards and the idea that they are not represents a bias against trade unions.Egaoblai (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated through general source coverage where the subject of the article is the subject of the source. Notability is sot a passing reference or general coverage of another event. Some individual categories have their own criteria see WP:ATHLETE. Notability for labour officials as a separate criteria does not exist. It is down to editors to demonstrate the notability of individuals, by the general standard in this case, if they believe they are notable for an article on Wikipedia. If notability can not be asserted, or demonstrated, then the subject mater fails. It is not opinion to state that sources have not demonstrated the standard required for inclusion of Wikipedia. The sources available for this individual are scant at best, and mainly passing references. It is not opinion to state there is an issue with the notability of this individual. The individual is so far, way below the bar of inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Utter drivel. Head (not just "a prominent member") of a very prominent trade union for twelve years, always in the news when he held that position (note that the BBC search only goes back to 1998, whereas he was general secretary from 1990, so there will be much more coverage than that in the media). And also President of the TUC (a post held only by leading trade unionists). Of course he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Necrothesp's BBC news results above. There's enough to meet GNG on that basis alone, which as Necrothesp points out, isn't a comprehensive list, pre-98. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp's comments.Dalliance (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If such sources do exist then improve the article, the searches carried out indicate that the coverage is incidental, or more coverage of the general election. Not specifically regarding the notability of the individual. Sport and politics (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Simply going of course he is notable. Is not enough. Demonstrate it. Add sources, add references. DO something other than stating he is therefore he is. Sport and politics (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go through some of these sources: The following are a random selection please feel free to show more:

From this source all that is regarding de Gruchy is the following end of article quite - His counterpart at the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, Nigel de Gruchy, said Mr Tomlinson was "honest and courageous"
From this source all that is said about de Gruchy is - "Not for the first time, the Liberal Democrats appear to have put forward an education manifesto which would be largely supported by the majority of teachers," says Nigel de Gruchy, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolteachers Union of Women Teachers.
From this source all that is said regarding de Gruchy is - The leader of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers teachers' union, Nigel de Gruchy, said the institute's report was "spot on".
From this source all that is said regarding de Gruchy is - Nigel de Gruchy, the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women teachers said it was "more privatisation, tempered only by more central and bureaucratic control".
From source all that is said regarding de Gruchy is -Others fear that the action zones may drain teachers from elsewhere. Nigel de Gruchy, General Secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, has said: "The facility to boost pay rates to attract the best teachers highlights the need for a substantial salary boost ... The plight of schools losing their best teachers to these education action zones seems to be ignored."

What he is doing is a routine part of a labour union job. Simply being in the news a lot does not make one notable. If this was the case every single elected union official from every trade would be notable if they appeared in a media outlet on a regular basis. The notability of the individual must be asserted, not the mere fact he gave a few soundbite quotes. Sport and politics (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Give it up. He's clearly notable. Is it not blatantly obvious that leaders of major trade unions are notable? We have articles for every footballer who appeared in a single match in a fully professional league (a routine part of their job!), every politician in a national legislature (doing a routine job!), every one-hit wonder singer, yet you're trying to argue that a very high profile public figure who appeared in the media hundreds of times (and has an entry in Who's Who, of course, and will have an obituary in all major British newspapers when he dies) is not notable. That goes against all common sense and suggests you think that WP should reduce itself to the level of a repository for pop culture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the direct question. No. Leaders of labour unions are not notable simply for holding that post. Some tiny union with 20 people, will not confer notability on to the leader of that union. Simply being a union official does not give rise to notability. Hammering on it does it does. Fails to see the point this needs to be demonstrated. Simply shouting ever louder it does, it does, misses that this needs to be clearly demonstrated. If this individual is in the source claimed, and a reliably referenced source to the article showing this to be the case. There appears to be an attempt to apply other notability criteria to this individual. He is not a sports person or a politician of note (he lost when he stood for parliament). If there is a belief that this class of individual should be notable I suggest proposing a new notability criterion. Also avoid WP:CRYSTAL violations about what may or may not happen in the future. There may or may not get to be an obituary. That is pure speculation. If this individual is so notable, why is the article not demonstrating the notability? If this information shows the person is notable add it to the article. Sport and politics (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. If it's not obvious to you then just click on the word "books" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process and take your pick from the many reliable sources found with significant coverage of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the leader of a trade union is not a guarantee that someone is notable. Being the leader of a large trade union, frankly, is - I've written articles on a large number of trade unionists, and there has been no difficulty in finding sources to meet WP:BASIC for those who were leaders of, say, any of the ten largest unions of the day. It's a mixed picture for secondary figures and leaders of smaller unions, but the quickest of searches brings up multiple, independent, reliable sources about de Gruchy, and it's just a matter of searching through to see which provide in-depth coverage. I've added some more info from about ten minutes searching; there's loads more out there. Warofdreams talk 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was no need to relist. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Raza Mishra[edit]

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

References are to non-notable blogs, seemed to have played side roles in a couple movies, but notability isn't inherited. A quick Google News search showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This actress has played roles in quite a few movies + TV shows, added info on page. I have seen actors with fewer movies on wikipedia so this should definitely be there.Nirajmb 13:38, 20 August 2017 (BST)

Delete our guidelines require significant roles, which are lacking in her case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails GNG and NACTOR. FITINDIA 12:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by User:Berean Hunter as WP:G5; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sajithj (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amphenol ICC[edit]

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

When an article on this division (not even a company) was created five days ago, it had two problems. It was blatantly promotional, and it did not establish notability. It was deleted as G11. This version has been stripped down so that it is no longer obviously spam, but it doesn't show notability with no references and can't show notability independently of the parent company. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and as a company that has not been shown to produce anything that is particularly notable, fails WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sock puppet investigation says that this article may be made by the same company. So it is WP:PROMO, and of course, the reasons above. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Coimbatore Junction railway station. This AfD suffers from rather low participation. The delete arguments are strong, but there are also good arguments that this is a notable subject. Hence I am redirecting this to Coimbatore Junction railway station so that the article can easily be restored if more substantial sourcing can be found. Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coimbatore railway Division[edit]

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

The article fails WP:ORGIND and WP:FAILCORP as there is NO such thing as "Coimbatore railway Division". The article quotes some references which has no direct or indirect connection with the subject provided. And all this sounds to be original research, not verifiable. Sources: 1, 2 & 3. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 19:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unacceptable original research Spiderone 10:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coimbatore Junction railway station. There may well have been a Coimbatore railway division prior to 1956 so I wouldn't say this is WP:OR or not verifiable. Someone with access to documents on the Indian railways prior to that date may well find significant coverage. However unless detailed sources are forthcoming on this historical division, or on a proposed new division of the same name, we don't have enough to support a separate article at this time.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 13:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it appears to have existed. There are 69 or 73 divisions (depending on which part of Zones and divisions of Indian Railways you read), so while I'm no Indian train expert despite having traveled several times on one, a division appears to be considered important enough to warrant its own article. This doesn't seem to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and notability isn't lost, so weak keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hand Drawn Pressing. Of note is that there are two comments at Talk:Hand Drawn Pressing supporting merging the content of Hand Drawn Records to Hand Drawn Pressing. There is also commentary at Talk:Hand Drawn Records for redirection from the creator of this AfD discussion and another user who has not contributed to this AfD discussion. Since this has been closed as a redirect, the Revision history remains available if anyone wants to merge some content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Drawn Records[edit]

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

I am bringing this to AfD because I followed the process at WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT and it has been reverted. The blank-and-redirect instructions say that in this circumstance, nominating the article for deletion is a way to obtain more input.

As I wrote on the article talk page and in my edit summary, I had reviewed the three references and found that they were all about the manufacturing arm of the business which already has an article about it, Hand Drawn Pressing. It seemed uncontroversial to go ahead and be bold in redirecting Hand Drawn Records to Hand Drawn Pressing.

If, at some later date, there is enough content about the record label to warrant a separate article for that aspect of the business then the revert can, of course, be turned back into an article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with nominator, fails the GNG, I could only find mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) 12:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hand Drawn Pressing. Non-notable record label, no sources found to indicate passes GNG, no roster of notable artists, or any other indication the label has made an impact on musical (or any other) culture. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiteSpeed Technologies[edit]

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

Non-notable company, which makes a non-notable web server. I can't find any WP:RS for this company. Most edits are by the same cluster of WP:SPAs which have been maintaining the related articles for their products. See also WP:Articles for deletion/OpenLiteSpeed and WP:Articles for deletion/LiteSpeed Web Server. I'm listing this separately from the server article because it's plausible the server itself is notable (even though I wasn't able to find any good sources myself), but the company sure isn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous promotion on a private company with no indications of notability or significance. 100% advertorial content. The article is cited to unsuitable sources and consists largely of trivia, such as:

"It is now used by 2.9% of all websites according to W3Techs, maintaining its spot as the 4th most popular web server!"

I'll request a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zentradi[edit]

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

My redirect was reverted so I am putting this up for AfD. The article appears to be WP:NOTPLOT of the type that is fitting for Wikia but not Wikipedia. The section on real world impact is only one sentence and has not been improved whatsoever since the previous "keep" vote. I could not find sources to prove that they are notable in a way that the series article could not cover. The sources that were used to defend it in the previous AfD were not sufficiently significant to pass WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources which were, in fact, found sufficient to meet WP:GNG in the last AfD. If you'd like to explain how notability has changed since 2016, I'd be interested to hear it. A redirect is unworkable, because Zentradi/Zentraedi are a fictional element interpreted two different ways in Macross and Robotech, the latter of which is a massive story rework of the original. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens:Comment No, it was not found to be sufficient, it had a non admin closure that in my opinion did not deliver a true conensus, as User:TTN had a valid argument that was drowned out by fans. That does not mean the keep votes were correct, so please provide evidence for your keep vote rather than citing WP:LASTTIME. I agree with their statement that: "Including the above, pretty much every source listed here is utterly trivial. It seems like everybody is going with the mindset that "the topic 'should' be notable, so it should just be assumed that there's plenty of sources on it." In terms of a redirect being unworkable, the term "Zentradi" is purely a Macross one while "Zentraedi" is a Robotech one, so they can redirect to their respective articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but that's not how this works: if you want to attack a previous close as wrongly decided, WP:DRV is thatway, otherwise, that is the previous consensus. Consensus can change, but that doesn't make a previous consensus "not a consensus." The fact that you agree with the otherwise-entirely-unsupported nominator in the previous AfD does not mean the consensus was wrong. So, do feel free to assert how you believe that not more than one the previous sources in the article or mentioned in the first AfD 'counts' towards the GNG, but realize that the burden to make such a proof is on you, since you want to revise the previous consensus. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jclemens:Maybe it could be placed in deletion review, I just wasn't sure what the policy was for deletions that were finished such a long time ago. It's a bit too late now for that, but I do disagree with the judgement of the closer of the AfD (ignoring the arguments while only taking into account the spurious keep votes).

In terms of the sources you cited in the last AFD. [27] - is an extremely minor mention and fails significance criteria. [28] - another minor, non significant mention. [29] - another minor mention. I could go on... I don't see a single one that is a significant mention per WP:GNG. As TTN said, "they are all name-drops"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet GNG. Artw (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Artw:Comment Any proof besides a WP:VAGUEWAVE?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You should look at the sources provided during the last AfD debate rather than broadly saying that the subject isn't notable. It is your job as the nominator to show why the sources would be invalid. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My argument is that they are all minor, insignificant mentions. I could list all of them individually, but it's literally the same argument for all of them. It's essentially WP:LOTSOFSOURCES._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That applies to looking for sources, not ones that are already present. That guide is helpful in what makes a good deletion argument but it does not override guidelines here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It applies to when people state "sources" in AfD's claiming they are proof of notability when they really aren't. You can give as many source examples as you want, but you won't find one that significantly mentions the Zentradi. Even if you do find one, I highly doubt that you will find enough to satisfy WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since they are being used in the article you have to show why they aren't notable. This is under WP:BEFORE Part D - "2.If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        ...Which I did. I looked over all the sources from the last AFD and did searches for sources, and while there were plenty of reliable ones, none of them were significant. They were all extremely brief, passing mentions that don't merit this topic to have an article, just a section on its respective page. The vast majority of sources (if not all of them?) used in this article currently are WP:PRIMARY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dweep Unani[edit]

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

Neologism or a hoax. There is no mention of the subject in those external links. I couldn't find anything during google search either. Hitro talk 10:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArtAbilitation[edit]

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

Non notable organization, somewhat promotional language, was only able to find passing mentions, but many of the mentions in a Google Books search likely refer to a different topic. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The following links seem to establish in-depth, reliable coverage: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] --Hazarasp (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Reasoning given for deletion is weak to the point of non existant. Promotional language may be a style issue with the page, but is not reason to delete, such concerns are better dealt with on the talk page of the article. "likely refer to a different topic". You cannot expect other editors to research this for you and to determine whether the mentions "likely" refer to another topic or not. We cannot delete pages based on a hunch. So you're only reasoning is "non notable" but this is not backed up by any explanation. Egaoblai (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are reliable references. however the promotional language should be fixed D8jang (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: after I fixed style issues, it seems to be good enough. If someone uses the sources Hazarasp found to expand the article, it would be fine. Alexius08 (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asunder (Canadian band)[edit]

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

Several searches did not turn up anything relevant, unsourced, unlikely to pass notability guidelines. Even a search of the supposed single came up with nothing on YouTube, which makes me begin to wonder if this band even existed in the first place. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find any coverage for this group; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND. gongshow talk 08:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not helped by having the same name as Asunder (American band), but there literally appears to be nothing out there about this group, which would certainly suggest they fail WP:BAND. They certainly didn't chart on any chart in the UK, not even the independent chart. Shelf Life Records do exist, but they started in 1996, the year the band supposedly broke up. Article author's entire contribution to Wikipedia was the six edits they made to create this article, and they were blocked six hours after joining Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; probably a hoax given that the only results I can find are apparently either this page or its mirrors. Everymorning (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS and notability. DaveApter (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can confirm that they existed, as I'm able to find one isolated radio station playlog confirming that a campus radio station in Ottawa once played a five-song set ("Nevergreen", "My People Shooting Hat", "Electric Butter", "Grim" and "Stabilize") of songs from Slower than Fast. But that doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC — if you're going for radio playlisting as the notability claim, then you need national networks and not local campus radio stations — and if that's the only evidence of their existence that I can find, then they don't pass WP:GNG. I'll caution that inability to find a song on YouTube is not in and of itself evidence that the song or the band never existed at all — the band existed, they just didn't accomplish anything notable. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearcat: Just to clarify, so you don't misinterpret my comments, I did not say there was any evidence that the band does not exist, literally all I meant was that I was unsure and became suspicious that it may not exist. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe )³  22:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of liberal and progressive Muslims[edit]

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

First it's an original research. Second, there is no any chance this list is going to be final at any moment of time. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 06:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 06:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 06:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOR and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was planning to nominate this myself. Not clear on what criteria are we listing, and what is the exact definition of "liberal Muslim" or "progressive Muslim". JahlilMA (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Contra the nomination, "finality" is not a requirement for lists, particularly where such lists of people would always just be limited to "...for whom we have articles." No opinion on the other arguments for deletion. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Per nom, we need to delete List of Muslim scientists as well for example. The issue here is obviously WP:NOR. JahlilMA (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting on the OR rationale in the nomination: I think the obvious assumption behind a list like this is that the inclusion of a person would be based on reliable sources that explicitly identify them as liberal or progressive. – Uanfala 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is, liberal Muslim or progressive Muslim are already contentious concepts. JahlilMA (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR; this list does not even attempt to set parameters for inclusion, which, with vaguely defined concepts like "liberal" and "progressive" is probably impossible to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is far too broad and subjective.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It took me a few days of revisiting this AfD and the article, as I wasn't sure about this at first. Based on the Wikipedia:Listcruft (non-binding) essay, as well as the (binding) policies and guidelines it's based on, I do think the mere concept of this is too problematic for meet criteria of acceptability.

The list seems to attempt to be discriminate, but the contentious subject matter precludes that from ever truly happening.
The list features reliable sources, but even the sources themselves on this topic (and I'm including scholarly ones) don't maintain a consistent definition of who is and who isn't a "liberal/progressive" Muslim.
The "list" is technically an article, dense and heavy in actual prose and detailed content backed up by reliable sources. Thus, this isn't really a list, it's simply a collection of information on individuals whose articles are better places for the information. If that information were to be merged, we'd then be left with a list so pointless and so threadbare that I don't think deletion would even be controversial.
As contentious as this topic is, a category can still be managed and maintained via vigilant verification. The existence of said category renders this article (it's not really a list) further redundant.

For these reasons, I support deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be entirely original research. Editor10! 14:05 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Weak delete - This list was recently excised from Liberalism and progressivism within Islam by user:JahlilMA (see above, second !voter) for the same reasons it should probably be deleted, that it requires too much OR to link individuals expressing the many different kinds of liberalism and progressivism in Islam. However, I do think that there is a lot of value in listing individuals who in the actions or writings express liberalism and/or progressivism in Islam. I think it would be better to base those lists on existing research and more concrete values, such as Muslim feminists or Muslim secularists. Currently, some examples exists such as List of LGBT rights activists being sorted by country or lists of politicians including information about political affiliations. Other "lists of X in Y" type articles exist as well, and I could imagine this article being more or less replaced by a list of lists article organizing these. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016[edit]

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

There are multiple problems with this page. Some of it is sourced to people's personal Twitter accounts. Regardless of the sourcing, these endorsements generally aren't relevant to anything. And the entire page comes off as promotional. Also note this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Political endorsements don't mean a lot. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most citations are primary sources or Youtube videos, not secondary reliable sources, which doesn't make these endorsements independently notable. Unless someone can find an RS for every single endorsement, I see no point in keeping this article. Just mention the endorsement in the endorser's article if it's notable.NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I must be looking at a different article, I'm seeing most entries reliably sourced. The ones which need better sourcing should be removed, but this isn't a valid rational for deletion. This is in much better shape than the Clinton AfD posted above, which had a separate article created because too many primary sourced entries made the article indiscriminate. The end result of that AfD is likely that they'll be merged back together into one endorsement article. Endorsement articles aren't promotional, they're common. See: List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012.LM2000 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the reliable sources and other several similar articles about Barrack Obama,

The Youtube : it is can be also evidence nowdays as it's also one of the primary roles of news for community. These items should be considered. D8jang (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be regarded as a self-published primary source at best. Also, it is hard to be sure if the source doing the self-publishing actually is who we think it is. It is relatively easy for somebody to spoof something, at least for a while. See also hordes of fake Twitter accounts. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016 I am not sure Wikipedia is the proper place to document lists of endorsements for political candidates (Notable endorsements covered in multiple independent sources, probably belong as part of the main campaign page). This makes Wikipedia akin to a campaign brochure. However, I wonder if AfD is the proper place to hold this discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on the validity of this type of article but I do think that it is very important that we are fair and consistent in either allowing or not allowing them. If this article goes then all the other articles of the same type have to go too. Maybe this does mean that individual AfDs are not the correct way to go as it would be too easy to reach inconsistent conclusions. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations were flawed. It's possible that one or both of the Hillary articles survive and this one gets deleted. It's also possible that this one gets deleted but the primary endorsements article stays. Then there's the endorsement articles from the 2008 and 2012 cycles, which remain unaffected either way. We also have articles for newspaper endorsements and articles like Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Similar articles exist for UK politics. I'm not sure where to have a discussion on these articles but I don't think individual AfDs is the place for it.LM2000 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons above. The main issue here should be determining if certain classes (such as individual state legislators) should be included at length, and parsing the sources to make sure they're reliable. Deleting this article would indicate a need to delete all other endorsement articles, which seems needlessly reactionary. An important part of understanding an election and its candidates is who were supporting the candidates and the justification around them.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix using reliable sources.--Jay942942 (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish to second the points made by Sunshineisles2 and Jay942942. I made similar points during the discussion on the potential deletion of the similar Hillary Clinton endorsement arguments.Mpen320 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Endorsements in major political elections such as for the American presidency are notable and widely covered by reliable sources. Any issues about individual entries at the page is a matter for editing and talk page discussion (e.g. removing hypothetical entries not even sourced to a verified primary source from the endorser), not deletion. In any case, deletion of endorsement pages would be better done as a decision via RFC than through individual AFDs. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 possible merge of the two lists can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

There are multiple problems with this page. Much of it is sourced to people's personal Twitter accounts. Regardless of the sourcing, these endorsements generally aren't relevant to anything. And the entire page comes off as promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as "creator". Due to its size, I split the original article into List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign political endorsements, 2016 and List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016. I have no strong feelings one way or the other, except that I don't like massive articles. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 06:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding that page to this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not handle this at the Wikiproject level? Is there a reason you've tagged none of the other lists for this deletion? Are the similar lists for Obama, Sanders, Trump, Romney not promotional?Mpen320 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these two lists back together and trim massively. The bar for inclusion must be something more than verifiability -- coverage in reliable secondary sources should be required, at the least. Otherwise, the premise is that the preference of every notable person in every national election is encyclopedic information, which is not feasible. Toohool (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and use inclusion criterion @Toohool suggested and/or the requirement that if the endorsement was during the general campaign, the endorsement must have been controversial, unexpected, unprecedented, etc. All endorsements from federal political figures should be included. All endorsements made during the primaries should be included, too. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The suggestion by Toohool makes sense to me. Should require at least one independent source (retaining the primary source would be a good idea, though, since we know news outlets get some endorsements wrong) and there's not much point to keeping separate lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both We cannot build lists from twitter posts. What I want to see is List of people who endorsed both Trump and Clinton at different times during the election cycle. Also, multiple non-notable people appear on the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we prepared to make similar lists for every political campaign for US preisdent? And include on them all members of congress who endorsed a particular candidate? This is an invitation to insanity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am not sure Wikipedia is the proper place to document lists of endorsements for political candidates (Notable endorsements covered in multiple independent sources, probably as part of the main campaign page). Is AfD the proper place to hold this discussion, though? --Enos733 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per JPL. Candidate endorsements generally don't mean much; the exceptions (if any) are few and far between. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also listed Trump's list. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most sources are primary or unreliable (like Youtube). Unless there is an RS for every single endorsement listed, there's no reason to keep this. Place these endorsements in their respective endorsers' articles. Also delete the political endorsements list. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in agreement with what was said by Toohool - Tvlover19 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to one list, based only on what is covered in reliable sources.LM2000 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no need for a merge; largely collection of trivia cited to primary sources. Concur that "Candidate endorsements generally don't mean much", especially from non politicians. The other list could be dealt with separately, but I'd lean "Delete" on that too. Or, at the very least, significantly trim (i.e. to politicians holding office at the time of the endorsement). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ - Don't merge. You would be moving the WP:PRIMARY and overall poor sourcing issue to one large article. Unless there is WP:RS that makes these endorsements particularly unique, this is just a list composed of WP:SYNTH and trivial name-drops.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rationales are terribly flaws but we need a broader discussion so I struck my vote. It would be silly to see this article deleted but not the rest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : it is issue": reference was sourced to people's personal Twitter accounts, these two articles should be merged together. D8jang (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that endorsement lists are encyclopedic. Endorsements are an important part of a campaign. Oprah's endorsement of Obama is considered one of the key things that got him elected. I think the crossover support shown in the article is also notable. I understand I am supposed to assume good faith, but the fact that this list has been marked for deletion around the same time Clinton's name began popping up in the media again is hard to dismiss as a coincidence. There are 31 lists in Category:United States presidential election endorsements, none of which have been marked for deletion. As there are 31 such lists and the articles here focus on the supposed futility of lists, consensus should be reached at the WikiProject level.Mpen320 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that endorsements can be notable. However, the question that should be raised is if all endorsements are notable. This subject is a collection (mere list) of endorsements, without any context or discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not simply delete endorsements that are not notable? Why not add why certain endorsements are notable (a large number of crossover Republican officials)? Wikipedia's policy has almost always been to improve rather than delete. Almost all the individuals have Wikipedia articles so the figures themselves are notable. Also, can someone answer why List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign political endorsements, 2016 redirects here? I am just curious why it doesn't have its own page?Mpen320 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should I nominate List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 for deletion? List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements from state, local and territory officials, 2008 and List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008? PartyPresident (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.Mpen320 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this page is grounds for deletion, 5 or 10 different pages for a bunch of different campaigns are also grounds for deletion, and I don't see them being nominated. This is being nominated solely because of a vendetta against Hillary Clinton. KingForPA (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that endorsements are not important or that information regarding them is not worth keeping record of (whether or not Wikipedia is the correct venue might be a separate question. Three things I would like to point out: 1) Superdelegates (and therefore endorsements) played a big role in both the 2008 and 2016 Democratic primaries -- particularly in shaping the early narratives in each campaign season regarding the delegate math; 2) Endorsements are not just about the person who receives them -- they also represent part the political history of those who endorse; and 3) Endorsements of others are often listed in biographical pages -- for instance, if you look at the wikipedia entry for Nina Turner her endorsement of Bernie Sanders is listed in the first paragraph of the entry (the same is true of Tulsi Gabbard's biographical entry). Regarding the last point, a determination that endorsements are not noteworthy would seemingly raise the question of whether all references to them should be eliminated site-wide (including on biographical pages).2602:306:3B1C:9060:283D:F1D7:3E1:DBAF (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone has just now added the Bernie Sanders list of endorsements for consideration for deletion in response, but that doesn't address what is happening in this effort to erase Hillary Clinton history online. Hillary Clinton's historic nomination to head a national ticket of a major party, and her winning the popular vote is women's history. Adding Sanders' rather listless endorsements page to being also considered for deletion as well doesn't change the fact that Hillary Clinton's candidacy has been targeted out for online erasing. Her pages are women's history and it's not in anyone's best interest to haggle it into oblivion long after the fact. Whatever relevance this haggling over individual entries may have had was when the campaign was active, before votes were cast, to influence individual voters. As they stand now, her candidacy pages are women's history and cannot be deleted without seriously damaging the historical record of her candidacy that these Wikipedia pages provide.
Keep. Endorsements in major political elections such as for the American presidency are notable and widely covered by reliable sources. Any issues about individual entries at the page is a matter for editing and talk page discussion (e.g. removing hypothetical entries not even sourced to a verified primary source from the endorser), not deletion. In any case, deletion of endorsement pages would be better done as a decision via RFC than through individual AFDs. I would also oppose merging the two lists simply because of navigability.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone has a problem with some, or even a number of the endorsements on this page, go ahead and delete them and the whole issue can be hashed out in discussion. That isn't really a reason to delete the entire page. If through such deletions the page is trimmed back significantly, merge the information into the main campaign page. I really don't understand the argument that "these endorsements generally aren't relevant to anything". Endorsements are a major part of any national level political campaign, especially for the Presidency. That isn't debatable, it's just the objective reality of American politics. Deleting this information would adversely affect Wikipedia's coverage of the 2016 Presidential election as a whole. Pstanton (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Keep or Merge. I too suspect the motives for deleting this information. Lists of endorsements seems to be well accepted practice for other candidates and I see no good justification to remove or to target this page. Inarius (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Journalists, academics, political researchers, etc., all find this information invaluable. That's what makes Wikipedia so special -- comprehensive, time-consuming research found no place else. Siberian Husky (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been such articles for every candidate for several cycles. Why is Hillary being singled out for erasure? Most voting to delete on this page are not supporting the deletion of Bernie or Trump's pages, and Obama, McCain, Romney, or even irrelevant nobodies like Jill Stein's endorsements aren't even being considered for deletion. Clearly this is not generally considered an issue. There should be some semblance of consistency. If endorsements are not considered important enough for a page, then there shouldn't be any for anyone. --Rmdsc (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge We should not be censoring info. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why has this been flagged for deletion and not other endorsement pages? Because of a vendetta against Hillary Clinton. This information is valuable and should be kept.
Keep I'd argue inherent notability for endorsements of politicians running for President of the US, they are a part of the fabric of American politics. Endorsements are solicited and coveted by campaigns, and routinely covered by the media. TheValeyard (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with TheValeyard quite strongly; and on a side note I will note that Trump's article has been kept. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Doherty (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. This article was previously deleted via BLPPROD. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not saying that in one year's time, he won't meet our notability guidelines. But I do agree that, right now, a co-lead role on The Lodge (TV series) and a very supporting role in Descendants 2 do not get this subject past WP:NACTOR, and the available sourcing for this subject does not meet what would be necessary for an exception under WP:BASIC. This is a perfect example of an article that should have been created and incubated in Draftspace for some time before even considering a move into Mainspace. (This one is also YA advertisement for why we need WP:ACTRIAL so badly, but that's a side issue...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- Part of the article for biographies on wikipedia mentions the following of the entertainer. I just looked and Thomas Doherty has 1.1 million followers on Instagram. I would think that is rather significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPEPVPAP (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also- when the article was previously deleted, it was an entry that was seriously a couple sentences long without any sources. It has vastly been improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPEPVPAP (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh- in comparison to other disney stars who have Wikipedia pages, it would seem odd to delete this. The role of Harry hook in descendants 2 is a very significant one with quite the following. Especially considering that descendants 2 is extremely popular, breaking records for viewership and also with songs that are charting, including toe that Doherty is a big part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:C300:97C7:D8BE:9E05:AB08:B106 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above two posters need to review Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the "Google test" section – popularity is not a legitimate way to assess notability. What determines "notability" in Wikipedia terms is significant independent coverage in Reliable sources (e.g. not "teen mags" or "gossip tabloids"...), as per WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Pointing out what posters should do, does not seem to legitimize why this page should be taken down. Tried the google test, Thomas Doherty is the first individual to come up and there any many things out there about him. I also previewed the Wikipedia pages of other similar celebrities and if this is a candidate to removal then there are many more that should be removed as well. If the concern is sources, the article includes sources from a variety of reliable publications- not "teen mags". Dance Spirit is a reputable source for those involved in the dance world http://www.dancespirit.com/. Edinburgh Evening News is a newspaper related to the Scotsman in Scotland. The MGA Academy of Performing Arts is a world recognized performing arts school. BBC News also a reputable source. Vogue and Sports Illustrated Kids- though they might not be as highly revered as others, they certainly are no Teen Gossip Magazines. Also, Billboard and Apple Music among others. Surely, if these sources are not considered legitimate then most celebrity pages on Wikipedia are far worse. I also recognize that popularity and notability are not the same thing, but the Wikipedia guidelines suggest that the person has a strong following and 1.1 million on instagram does seem like a strong following. That being said, with this overview of sources, how can one even think that Thomas Doherty is not notable. I have read over the arguments section, I am providing valid proof with more than valid sources, so deleting such an article about this individual seems to not make sense. Clearly, if it should be deleted then the person who proposes such needs to come up with some really strong arguments with evidence to support these arguments as the evidence seems to stack up against them. Personal opinion does not have the same weight as the sources that I mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:C300:97C7:30B7:6268:5CD2:C6E9 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC) — Example (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. DrStrauss talk 08:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets #1 of WP:NACTOR as had two significant roles. Could also satisfy #2 but that's debatable. Also meets WP:GNG with sources in article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:NACTOR, and the only del comment is saying the article 'could' be notable later. I see no reason to delete this article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Hero[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, sources are WP:PRIMARY or unreliable. A search didn't find anything not from obscure sites. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. --Izno (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apple & Onion[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. There are concerns about Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and notability. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either CRYSTAL or GNG. Borderline on TVSERIES. South Nashua (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, where the show is listed. As far as coverage, there are brief mentions here and there, but in my view there is too little content to warrant a standalone article at this time. gongshow talk 09:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Two sentences is not an article. Heck, that's barely a stub. If we keep it and the show falls through (which happens), the pointless stub would hang around until someone decides to discuss it again and we'd delete it then as it is clearly not notable (notability is not temporary, so there's an obvious problem there). If, OTOH, we delete it and the show later materializes, there will (in all likelihood) be no shortage of sources and we can create a meaningful article for the then-notable show. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - non-notable band. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black6ix (Band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND and WP:NMUSIC. Per article, the group debuted on 7 April and as such WP:TOOSOON applies. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Clovis library shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Apologies if there is an appropriate speedy category. TheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a speedy situation. WP:RAPID is also in play - this isn't an event that is clearly not notable (it is covered quite widely by the international media) - a mass shooting (2 dead + injured) with a young suspect at library.Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep continuing wide international coverage on the 31st. Some BLP issues on incorporating part of them, but they still assert notability. LASTING is better assessed in the future.Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, spree killing with widespread coverage. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worldwide coverage, spree killing and of current international focus. Bkerensa (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - TheLongTone this was a good AfD but too many voters will ignore the WP:NOTNEWS aspect of it in favor of WP:RAPID. A fundamental flaw with their reasoning is they are basically asking editors to keep an unnotable article and hope it becomes notable. A better precedent would be to wait when a subject is actually notable then create an article. Revisit this in six months when RAPID cannot be used as a cop-out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly a quick look at your contributions show you frequently jump on the pro-deletion bandwagon of terrorist attacks and this article should stay there is precedent in these type of articles with this degree of notability and coverage. Bkerensa (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bkerensa what precedent is that: your personal opinion? I enjoy jumping on the policy bandwagon; in this case, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:LASTING among others I suggest you read. It may interest you to know that the incident is not being investigated as terrorism. Can you elaborate on "the degree" of notability with actual policies? WP:RECENTISM directs us to treat breaking news events and their corresponding media coverage differently than historical events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this story is still developing, but that at the moment the AP is reporting that this was a spree shooting in which a youth walked into a library with a gun and murdered total strangers. WP:RAPID applies to creator and Nom, Creator would do better to source and expand the article, Nom ought to have waited until the police got a handle on what happened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep ~~at least for now,~~ and give editors a chance to source it - and authorities and journalists chance to get the facts together.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Revising to just plain Keep; because coverage meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:recentism and WP:routine. This is an encyclopedia, not a new site. If it develops in to something significant re-create the article later. As the suspect is alive WP:BLP must also be adhered to. Sport and politics (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we do tend to keep spree shootings of strangers, and even work-related shootings like the 2017 Weis Markets shooting, also see Category:2017 mass shootings in the United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no content as it currently stands, it is barely a paragraph long, this is a total waste of wikipedia server space as it currently stands, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of all news events. Sport and politics (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's "barely a paragraph" but it's a waste of server space? And how much server space would that be? A totally hyperbolic comment. Juneau Mike (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, a better level of explanation is needed, than it is because reasons. Sport and politics (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an explanation. I don't need to write a whole paragraph about it. But if you want more of my opinions, OK: I think AfDs on major news events are ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time. A mass shooting is not a "routine" event of merely local significance—if it were, then it would be buried in the inside of a local newspaper and there wouldn't be a panoply of sources about it. Everyking (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article as it currently stands has three sources, the term mass shooting, is POV and not established here is 2 deaths and four injuries really a Mass Shooting? armed bank robberies can have more and they are not referred to as Bank Robbery and Mass Shooting. This is not a good article at all, and the event itself is generating little in the way of wide notability, to go beyond a news story. Sport and politics (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sport and politics, You misunderstand Wikipedia:Notability. The question is not whether the article is presently well-sourced, the question during AfD is: "whether a given topic warrants its own article. Moreover, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that deletion is not clean up, in this case the article in un-encyclopedic, and fails to meet notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Simply waving about going KEEP KEEP KEEP to everything, turns this from an encyclopedia in to a news site, which Wikipedia most certainly is not. This article is a murder and not every murder goes on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon. Please do not respond to every comment made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please make personal comments on personal user pages. Also please be aware of WP:boomerang Sport and politics (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mass shooting with multiple fatalities occurred at a public place. This is notable enough to have its own article supported by reliable sources WereWolf (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable since multiple fatalities/injuries occurred because of this incident. This is Paul (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly passes WP:NEVENTS with widespread coverage for this event. Greenbörg (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are users aware of the existence of Wikinews. If not then please go find it because that is where this belongs. Sport and politics (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The way the article is typed up violates WP:NOTNEWS. If the shootings had multiple critical responses or some sort of legislative effect, I think the article would have been worth keeping under WP:LASTING. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm going to go with a "delete" on this one. The article, as written, reads like a news report, even including the names of otherwise nn victims. It also contains content such as the killer's shouts of: “Run! Why aren’t you running? I’m shooting at you! Run!” This tells me that there's nothing better to include. As others have said, if this develops into something notable, someone would recreate the article. In the current form, this is not encyclopedic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no shortage of coverage, what we're short of is editors. Grand Jury convenes day after tomorrow. Op-eds, feature stories starting to come in, granted I live on a different planet from the concealed carry state where this took place and where someone wrote an op-ed suggesting that there ought to be a law specifying "No concealed weapons in public libraries " [35].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The way this article reads now is not conducive to what I'd say is a wiki-worthy article, but I believe with the right editors and right information, this article can stay, therefore I am sticking with keep, so long as information within the next 1 week that comes out as the grand jury convenes reads less like a news article. Definitely meets WP:Notability standards. Bryan C. W. (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to write this, but two people killed in an American shooting is sadly all too common. Most lists of mass shootings don't even include them in the definition unless four people die with a few days. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, certainly a high death toll correlates with widespread coverage. On the other hand, it is the distinction between killing multiple people that you are personally connected with (gang members, family) and indiscriminately shooting at strangers that makes a crime into a national headline, as here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs expansion, c/e etc. But that is not a reason for deletion. This is a notable subject.BabbaQ (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable my curvy pink. It made the newspapers; not the same thing.TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Continuing coverage more than two weeks after the event exists [36], demonstrates its notability. At the very least, it should be merged somewhere. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources indicate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:A7: no credible assertion of significance. Article was also deleted as Sheayu Felisha Cute. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheayu Felisha Cute (actress)[edit]

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

Actress with no notability-only thing has been in is a short Wgolf (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note-it seem to not transfer to Sheayu Felisha Cute, which I moved this right before since it was a uneeded DAB to make it easier for the AFD yet it tried it on the old link instead of the new page. Wgolf (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link for you. ansh 666 03:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wgolf (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NACTOR, teenager who appeared in a video two years ago which has no mentions online in WP:RS. This article was originally pasted from Hendry Adii Magiic (actor), which was created a few weeks ago by another WP:SPA. That article should be bundled here on the same grounds for deletion. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't show significance or notability of the subject. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 13:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico International University[edit]

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

Not notable, untouched entirely since 2009 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Secondary (or higher) school OF CONFIRMED EXISTENCE. Keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that articles on such entities are automatically retained. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It takes slightly more than confirmed existence to guarantee notability. Is it accredited by the authorities? Does it have full-time students or classrooms or employees? Is it more than someone in their bedroom selling certificates? I tried to search for information but I don't know enough about Mexican education to know where you would find this kind of thing (rankings, directories, list of accredited institutions, etc), and the monitor.com.mx link wasn't working when I tried it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmartCard Marketing Systems[edit]

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

No actual substantial sources, and a promotional article written in promotional language . DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- agree, this is unambiguous promotion. I requested deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Turkey relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Iceland–Turkey relations

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

fails WP:GNG. this article is just a list of non resident ambassadors. neither country has ever had resident ambassadors. interactions between Turkey and Iceland have almost been exclusively via EFTA. EFTA-Turkey relations may be warranted but not this bilateral. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like other bilateral relations articles, in order to describe extent of bilateral relations, such as any embassies or not, treaties or not, etc. Deletion nominator seems more knowledgeable than most people, to know that this pair of countries might inter-relate through EFTA, whatever that is, but there is no reason to deny that info to Wikipedia readers. In the past there were many articles about embassy buildings which were arguably not notable on their own; a common solution was to redirect them to bilateral relations articles and cover the embassies there, on basis that bilateral relations are essentially notable on wp:INHERENT grounds. (Ack, i can anticipate the deletion nominator's reaction to that, which I hope they will consider just not stating, please, but I expect they will. They disagree, fine. Well, I disagree with them.)

Also, the deletion nominator at other AFDs has implied my comments are lies, or bad faith in various other ways, and has made what amount to personal attacks, while also claiming they are always civil. Whatever. For what it is worth, I browse "today's" AFDs occasionally and this right now is top of the list there. Since the deletion nominator was the nominator of another bilateral relations AFD recently, I am not surprised they are the deletion nominator here, but I have not been following their contributions to oppose them. If I did do that, that would be perfectly okay, I believe, anyhow, because there seems to be a troubling pattern. --do ncr am 02:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article contains a list of notable ambassadors (5 or 6 of them individually notable apparently as demonstrated by existence of articles on them), which would be a valid list-article on its own. This article is a good place to hold that, instead of having it be separate, plus to cover facts about embassies or lack of them, ambassadors from the other country, etc. Also I wonder about Iceland accepting immigrants from Turkey, that would be a valid kind of topic to cover (I assume a far higher percentage of Iceland is of Turkish descent than vice versa.) --do ncr am 02:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

without even being deletion sorted doncram (talk · contribs) turns up at another AfD I've nominated in less than 24 hours [he claimed yesterday to find the article via delsorting even though it hadn't been listed] and no surprise votes WP:ITSNOTABLE and includes WP:ADHOM attacks of me. it's bordering on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. as for lies, doncram has asserted all museums are notable, this discussion proves this is a lie. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bilateral relations are essentially notable is clearly false and another falsehood. community consensus has deleted 100s of these , therefore WP:INHERENT cannot apply. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I wonder about Iceland accepting immigrants from Turkey' is just original research on your part, you're just speculating with no evidence. I will strongly refute your claim of Iceland having some sort of Turkish migration: LibStar (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facile assertions about what i claimed, when i didn't make those claims, rather proves the point, yup.

What about the recent Turkish Abductions, when a high percentage of Icelanders were actually kidnapped by Turks, we should not forget, right!?! :) And there does exist organization of turkish expats in Iceland. Umm, mathematically, if there are 100 or whatever number of Turkish immigrants in Iceland, however small the percent is, it is automatically an order of magnitude more than a similar number of Icelanders (unlikely) in Turkey, given the disparity of populations. --do ncr am 03:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, mathematically, if there are 100 or whatever number of Turkish immigrants in Iceland, however small the percent is, it is automatically an order of magnitude more than a similar number of Icelanders (unlikely) in Turkey, given the disparity of population regardless of the fact there aren't even 100 turkish migrants, this statement is one of the most ludicrous arguments for keep I've ever seen in my 10 years on WP. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hilarious, is not an organisation it's a social networking site for expats to find each other, how this somehow is a reliable source that makes Iceland–Turkey relations notable is pure WP:SYNTHESIS. clutching at straws in trying to make a non inherently notable topic, notable. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hilarious the Turkish Abductions are from the 17th century, and Iceland became an independent country in the 1940s. the topic is described well enough in its own article. again using pure WP:SYNTHESIS to try to make this bilateral somehow notable. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leaving aside the minor warfare above, this is (as the nominator rightly points out), an entirely non-notable instance of bilateral relations which don't really exist to any meaningful extent. The fact that EFTA and other multilateral organisations are a "substitute" (for want of a better word) has a lot to do with that. Wishful speculation about what an article could contain (including "recent" events in the 17th century) don't amount to reasons in favour of keeping an article which doesn't - not to mention shouldn't - include those things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Bilateral relations seem important enough to warrant inherent notability, given that they relate to countries which are probably one of the most notable categories in the wiki. Bilateral relations articles should not be deleted even if there is little infomation, as little infomation is in itself information. The page editors have also added information on the history of ambassadors, something useful and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. These pages also fall into a category of potential. Is there a pressing need to delete this page, when the subject of the article remains and will remain a 'thing" as long as the two countries exist? The AfD nominator needs to do better to explain why exactly this page being in wikipedia is harmful to the project otherwise, we should follow with the idea that bilateral relations pages are almost always inherently notable Egaoblai (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is absolutely no inherent notability of bilateral articles. several 100 have been deleted. WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:NOHARM are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2017 (

There's definitely a strong argument to be made for them being notable, given that countries themselves are among the most notable pages here. Relationships between those countries represent dynamic situations and as such are never a 'case closed' page. This page does not represent a meeting that once happened in 1972, but an ongoing relationship. If there was literally nothing here then you may have an argument that it should be deleted,but clearly there is something here- a list of ambassadors- and we do not delete things that are notable simply because the pages are small. To be clear, countries are highly notable subjects and it follows that the relations between two countries are in most cases notable, clearly in this case where notability has been established by the editors of the page, who have added pertinant information.Egaoblai (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

community WP:CONSENSUS has decided several hundred bilateral articles to be deleted therefore granting no inherent notability. you're just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE when it isn't. there have also been failed proposals to give bilaterals inherent notability. please accept consensus and stop unilaterally granting inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we accept that bilateral relations are not inherently notable, both myself and another user have provided a lot of arguments as to why this particular page is: 1. The relationships between two VERY notable subjects are a good indicator of notabiility 2. the relationship is an ongoing process 3. Brevity is not an argument for deletion 4. the ambassadors themselves are notable, which adds weight to the arguments for this pages notability. 5. the information is of historical interest and so is suitable for an encyclopedia. By keeping this page the encyclopedia gains a page that may be of use to researchers on Iceland ambassadors to Turkey in an English language. Your argument so far has been WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE Without many convincing arguments as to why. As the person nominating an article for deletion your task is to explain how the encyclopedia would be better without this page, not just claim "it's not notable" something there clearly isn't a consensus on.Egaoblai (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ambassadors are not inherently notable either. over 100 ambassador articles have beem deleted. in any case these are all non resident ambassadors. this still fails WP:GNG. can you show me even 5 sources that discuss these bilateral relations in depth. I bet you can't. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I appreciate when a nominator does their homework and can constructively defend their rationale with, and only with, policy-based statements -- not opinions. As has been mentioned, the bilateral relations between Iceland and Turkey do not exist to a meaningful extent an that is clearly recognizable by the lack of significant coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable topic. The notable ambassadors are notable for entirely different reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This really isn't a notable topic. -- Begoon 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not a notable topic. Are we going to have tens of thousands of these contentless cookiecutter stubs, one for every combination of countries? Reyk _YO! 08:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming 195 countries in the world, I think that's 18,915 articles, at one per pair - unless I stuffed the maths up. -- Begoon 10:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same: 195x194/2=18915. Reyk _YO! 12:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am too thinking that. Such as Iceland-Nigeria relations [37].. Capitals00 (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don Hawkins[edit]

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

Non-notable subject who fails WP:NACTOR. No lasting impact on film or significant following, with the article only citing IMDb and a search turning up little else. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Acting credits are weak, and I can't find any real media attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're hampered by his career being before the internet age but I've searched the British Newspaper Archive and Google books, where we might reasonably find pre-internet material, and also Newsbank archives for more recent stuff as well as the usual Google web and news searches, and I'm not seeing any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Kozlov[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Claimed "starring" roles in War of the Worlds and The Good Shepherd were uncredited. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched for sources and could not find much, not enough to make an article. Antrocent (♫♬) 17:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject's roles to date do not meet WP:NACTOR and I'm unable to find coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. gongshow talk 02:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erryn Arkin[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. No substantial coverage in reliable sources found. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All guest or minor recurring roles. WP:TOOSOON. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe )³  22:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ismet Sejfić[edit]

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

Fails NHOOPS, GNG. You'd think being a member of a national team would be enough for N, but not at current standards. I'm personally on the fence on deleting this (not a highly ranked national team), but we should try to follow standards for uniformity's sake. South Nashua (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references about him from what seem to be the top newspapers/newssites in Bosnia. Since he had a very good season in Hungary there is very good chance that there are some articles about him there, and possibly also in Lithuania where he played in the top tier league. Although he probably fails NHOOPS, he should pass GNG. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve He played in at least two European top-tier professional leagues. This article must be simply improved. Asturkian (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe )³  22:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Z. Ehrhardt[edit]

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

Non-notable writer. No independent references, only interviews. No in-depth coverage found on Google search. Not every writer is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a NYT book review to the references. Her work has been critically reviewed in at least one reliable source. Mduvekot (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Hmlarson (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see why interviews are not independent sources, as clearly they demonstrate notability in the fact that a publication wants to use their space for a interview with the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by User:RHaworth as WP:G11 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leap.ai[edit]

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

Startup. Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH, promotional. Kleuske (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added new sources of reference, total 7 references

Re:WP:CORPDEPTH-Read: ^[1] 848 words

Justinkidding (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/26/two-ex-googlers-are-using-leap-ai-guaranteed-job-interviews-tech-companies/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- promotionalism on an unremarkable jobs board; significant RS coverage not found. $2.4M in funding is too small for this company to be presumed notable. Promo content includes:
"...an intelligent job matching platform that uses artificial intelligence!"

Etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (update) as unambiguous advertising. I noticed that the creator's talk page includes a notice about Agora.io, since deleted at AfD. The pattern of creating these articles strongly suggests a promotional intent. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer)[edit]

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

Not notable; not even the individuals first name is known. ~~WP:CRIN only refers to players in Test matches after 1877.~~ Power~enwiki (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck part of my nominating statement. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Power~enwiki. Where does it say in WP:CRIN that it "only refers to players in Test matches after 1877"? I suggest that you read it again, then have another look at the article which has been expanded today, and then ask yourself if this nomination was one of your better edits. Please exercise care when assessing policies and guidelines or you end up wasting other people's time. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"men's and women's cricket having equal importance, to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia: has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international", followed by "The substantial source qualification includes any player or umpire (both men and women) who has appeared in a Test match since 1877". Power~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the entire sentence after "since 1877;" and you should be able to see that it says rather more than you appear to think it does. Don't you understand semi-colons? I can't decide if this is wilful disruption so let's have a full explanation for your time-wasting. Jack | ^{talk page} 03:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please assume good faith? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This discussion has been taken to nominator's own talk page. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To attempt to clarify for other readers: while the terms "test cricket" and "first-class cricket" don't apply before the mid-1800s, the notability rules related to them do apply at WP:CRIN. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- biographical article about a non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known. I think it goes without saying that WP:CRIN is way too lax in its standards if it encourages the creation of a horde of contentless microstubs like this one. I could support a merge to a suitable list article, if there is one. Reyk _YO! 06:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unlike at the other cricket AfD at the moment, this is where I think that WP:CRIN is absolutely applicable. Amongst his appearances, Whitehead made a number of appearances for an "England" side. While that bears no resemblance to what we call the England cricket team now, it means he would most certainly have been a notable cricketer of the time. The fact that he played during the 18th century, when we have very limited sources, means that we have limited information (including, as noted, not even a first name). However, there is no doubt in my mind that this player is notable. Can the article be improved to better show that? Sure. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Harrias rightly points out, this is a stub with plenty of scope for expansion. Whitehead was both a player with several first-class appearances and a significant match organiser. Okay, we don't know his first name (yet). So what? Jack | ^{talk page} 11:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. And to prove the point, the article has been expanded somewhat with plenty of additional citations taken from impeccable book sources to provide a more complete summary of Mr Whitehead's career. I could go much further but this will do for now. I'm glad Harrias pointed out that sources from the 18th (and, indeed, much of the 19th) century are limited. In that context, we can do without ignorant comments like "non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known". There's always one, of course. It was common practice in 18th century newspapers to name someone as "Mr R. Whitehead" and not use a first name. We are lucky he was one of the so-called gentry or we might not even have an initial. This convention presents problems for modern researchers which any credible editor should readily acknowledge. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not going to turn this into some petty little drama. Just stating one simple thing. We either define a level at which cricketers are notable and stick to it, or we don't. To make petty case-by-case exceptions without legitimate and universal statistical justification just because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, is pointless and, as we are now finding out, a waste of time unless something is done about it. Want to alter WP:CRIN? Individual AfDs are not the place to attempt to alter WP:CRIN criteria. The fact that WP:CRIN criteria are *painfully* easy to understand and implement is making this whole business a joke. Bobo. 16:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that they are easy to understand. The specific sentence "Hence, a player who represented Kent in the earliest known inter-county match in 1709 is as notable as a player who represented Kent's first team in any recent County Championship season." is clear, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:CRICN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom the page clearly meets WP:CRIN now. ~~This can probably be SNOW closed as keep.~~ Power~enwiki (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on closing unless Reyk changes their mind, this should not be closed as SNOW, or nominator withdrawal, as there is reasonable (if minimal) opposition. Harrias ^talk 06:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Jack's extraordinary bad faith tirade against me, I no longer care what you people do and I'd prefer to be left alone. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk, this goes deeper than some childish temper tantrum. Existence of AfD pages such as those relating to S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) which have been sent to AfD, when even a child can understand they meet notability criteria (the fact that I've demonstrably proven that the two basic notability guidelines contradict each other is by the by), prove that those who disagree with WP:CRIN for the sake of it simply have too much time on their hands. Either all FC cricketers are notable, or none are. That is the only way to ensure unbiased NPOV.

Oh, and I promised not to turn this into some petty childish drama... ;) Please don't bait me or others in the future. People like sulking about that kind of thing. Bobo . 08:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo, my underlying concern about the WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade is that they contravene WP:NOTHERE and should not be here at all. Their purpose is not to build the encyclopaedia but to impede those who do, which is both disruptive and bad faith. They need to take on board that we readily support deletion of cricket articles that don't meet CRIN, as per the u-19 one raised a day or two ago by User:Lugnuts. Hope you're okay, btw, Bobo. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jack. I am well. Smiley face. (Sorry, back on topic now. :D ) Bobo . 08:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't criticise CRIN just for the sake of it. I'm generally wary of notability guidelines that allow database entries to be inflated to full articles. This is because turning an Excel cell into prose can inadvertently introduce errors, such as asserting a player is retired (or still living) when you've no idea if they are ir not. And as I proved in the Perera AfD statistical aggregators can be ambiguous about if it's one player appearing for two teams, or two similarly named people. These are potential BLP nightmares. Finally, I think stats entries are best presented as lists, which don't dilute minimal content over a multitude of articles and also protect against the trap of saying more than the sources do. You might not agree, but it is not fair to dismiss my views as "petty". Yet you accuse me of baiting you. Astonishing. And, Jack, if you think I'm NOTHERE, go to ANI and seek a block. Otherwise, both of you leave me alone. Reyk _YO! 09:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bait us for the sake of it, Reyk, you're not being as funny as you think you are. Bobo . 09:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not baiting anyone or trying to be funny, and I'm not sure how you've gotten that impression. I am being completely sincere. Reyk _YO! 09:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP (Living persons) isn't relevant here. Your concerns with the article are sufficient clear; I will not be withdrawing this AfD. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jack, are you the original author/curator of WP:CRIN? How long has this lasted without having been argued with on this petty a level? Bobo . 08:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobo, our messages crossed then. I'm the main author of CRIN, yes, and it only gets updated if someone points out an ambiguity or if some new feature arises that it needs to encompass. We try to be proactive and, of course, we take on board constructive criticism, most of which comes from within CRIC itself. For example, I've amended it this morning because of the CA subs situation – no point specifying a site that only a handful of us can use nowadays. As regards player notability, it hasn't changed in a decade: anyone who has played top-level domestic cricket in an ICC Full Member country is notable. Simple as that. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of a single instance of "constructive criticism" when having come up against an individual who clearly meets WP:CRIN criteria. But then we've never had to argue over such petty things as this and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) before.. ;) Bobo . 08:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading S. Perera's AfD debate over again makes me chortle. When weight is given to arguments including those from IP addresses, renamed - and later blocked - proven sockpuppet accounts... and an article is therefore deleted based on undefined "rules of thumb" and the lack of "basic details" - when the article so painfully obviously passes WP:CRIN criteria... there exists only a single legitimate delete !vote in that AfD debate... If I weren't so disgusted by the actions of the last month or so, I would be prepared to take it to WP:RFU on these grounds. Bobo . 09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note how something as idiotically woolly and contradictory as WP:GNG didn't exist back then as an apparently legitimate delete vote criterion... Bobo . 10:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above, and the excellent expansion work since being brought to AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interestingly, the striking that PowerEn-Wiki has just done to his original AfD nomination statement, has completely invalidated the purpose of his sending the article to AfD in the first place - which anyone who knows a single thing about cricket knows was on spurious grounds anyway. Now it simply reads, "Please get rid of this article. We do not know this man's first name. Therefore he is not notable." An opinion seemingly shared by Reyk... Bobo . 18:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @BlackJack: - please forgive me for switching topics but this is the most expedient way to do so - have you seen the link to S. Perera's AfD debate that I posted above? What say you? On the basis that the debate only contains one legitimate delete vote... worth taking to WP:RFU? Bobo . 18:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Bobo. I'd say you have a strong case. Which one is the legitimate voter and were the others all socks? Let me know if it goes to RFU. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ida Saxton McKinley#Children. Merge, then redirect. Arguments generally support merging to the First Lady. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine McKinley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are references to books about William McKinley or Ida McKinley, plus Findagrave (she's buried with her sister and parents), and probably could be merged to the Ida article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ida_Saxton_McKinley#Children. A 3-year-old is hard to establish independent notability and the amount of content would be a perfect fit for the Ida article which has an empty section about the children. -- GreenC 01:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think being a child of a U.S. president is sufficient criteria for establishing notability. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires verifiable evidence (WP:NRVE) and being the relative of a famous person is not reason enough for a standalone article (WP:INVALIDBIO). A redirect would be appropriate. -- GreenC 02:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ida_Saxton_McKinley#Children per GreenC. Hmlarson (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to William McKinley#Legal career and marriage. Surely the redirect should be to the more famous parent. A child who died very young does not need an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The father is a Featured Article and merging that amount of content would be problematic/impossible. The mother can be a simple copy-paste with no loss of content. The redirect probably should go to wherever the most content about the child is available. -- GreenC 13:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ida McKinley is also the one who seems to have suffered long-term health effects from the loss of the children, and health hindered her performance as First Lady. It would seem more reasonable to put it in her article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Leslie Elliott[edit]

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

Lacks any singificant notability and doesn't really give any details about the person and is dependent on a sole source. BSOleader (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the 'sole source' is an official national dictionary of biography which includes the following secondary sources:
- - O'Connor, P. S. 'Protestants, Catholics and the New Zealand government, 1916--1918'. In W. P. Morrell: a tribute. Ed. G. A. Wood & P. S. O'Connor. Dunedin, 1973
  - O'Connor, P. S. 'Sectarian conflict in New Zealand, 1911--1920'. Political Science 19, No 1 (July 1967): 3--16
  - Who's who in New Zealand and the western Pacific, 1925. Masterton, 1924

That seems like quite enough to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Snow keep There have been dozens of previous cases where DNZB stubs have been put up for deletion, and they have all been kept. Community consensus is that being listed in the DNZB bestows inherent notability. Schwede 66 02:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not 100% true. Barbara Weldon and Jessie Finnie both got deleted, but I rescued them to merge into Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They're in the other DNZB. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apart from the handful of representative entries, as explained in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography article. I was typing the above on my smartphone and couldn't be bothered mentioning the representative entries (and this one is obviously not one of them). Schwede 66 05:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Longstanding consensus has been that almost every entry in the first DNZB is considered to be automatically notable. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Thank you for notifying the NZ wikiproject. I think there is enough here to demonstrate notability. The article could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. Mattlore (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://techcrunch.com/2017/08/26/two-ex-googlers-are-using-leap-ai-guaranteed-job-interviews-tech-companies/

[1]