Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 September	28 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) 18:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stuchbery[edit]

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

WP:RECENTISM/WP:BLP1E/WP:LOWPROFILE/WP:NACADEMIC. The subject became the topic of news coverage recently for a series of tweets countering assertions by an alt-right blogger on Twitter. Before that, the subject was a schoolteacher. The sources on the article are mainly about the Twitter event, and a few reprises of other events on Twitter. Then, there are primary sources like tweets and YouTube videos. There is practically no third-party coverage of the subject's non-Twitter writing or podcasting, which is his work. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page already has a COI tag, author may have been making a WP:POINT about Wikipedia including an article on the subject's Twitter opponent Paul Joseph Watson [1] Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete The article is primarily based on a single social media exchange, and, prior to editing, the article was heavily biased in favour of Stuchbery's personal views, possibly by Stuchbery himself or a close confidant. All relevant information provided by the article can be found by simply observing the social media exchange in question. TheOneTrueMin (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event is not notable, and even if it was Stuchbery himself is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How is this person notable enough to have a personal biography page? Stuchbery is a literal "who" that receives no attention outside of an extremely insular twitter community, and from 5 minutes in the sun months ago, from again, a meaningless twitter spat. He has done no major works, and is completely removed from the greater public debate sphere. There are far more famous people with many more public accomplishments with no biography, and wiki has a very high standard for creating one. Before the recent clean up, this article was ridiculously biased and elementary as well, promoting that this was made by some sycophant, or even Stuchbery himself. This article should be deleted.2601:982:4201:D40:D5D3:6C8D:F3:620A (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi Mr IP (it's hard to tag you). The creator of the article said that he wrote the article independently of Stuchbery and only received two facts by e-mail (DOB and future projects). However, by knowing some other very private facts about him (most notably that he had a previous marriage, something that very few married men speak publicly about at all), using such promotional language and even blaming his Norfolk school debacle on local poverty (talk about classism!) I guess they are pretty close Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be worth it to WP:SALT here, as the only people who will recreate it will either be a WP:COI WP:PUFF editor like the creator here, or an alt-right troll. The fact is that the subject is not the "historian" he claimed to be, and as I said in an edit summary, he has quietly altered his online profiles to accept that. From what I gathered, at best he works in popular history, and I mean popular in approach rather than as appeal - he has fewer than 1,000 views on YouTube (yet his channel was mentioned on this article) and even with his recent buzz he hasn't reached the meagre goal on his Patreon. He may well know more than Paul Joseph Watson but Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - the article on Watson was deleted several times before there was sufficient third-party sources over a stretch of time. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. bd2412 T 21:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the creator padded this article out by WP:COATRACKing his own views, for his Twitter shows that he is a socialist. He wrote in Wikipedia's own voice that anti-Semitic anti-capitalism was not a part of Nazi ideology, while this Holocaust education website says "The position of the Jews at the centre of both political and economic affairs was perfect for theories of political conspiracy. It was relatively easy to accuse Jews of being in collusion with and responsible for communism, capitalism, liberalism, socialism, revolution, etc". Any high school textbook will tell you that Nazis and other fascists were opposed to the international nature of both capitalism and communism, hence the Third Position. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider this rant by the creator. You heard it here folks, if Paul Joseph Watson and Richard Spencer have articles, anyone who disagrees with them should too! Also I log out and fly on a plane to Pennsylvania to make talk page edits because nobody else agrees this page is non-notable Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was an admittance of WP:POINT WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and skirting WP:NOTHERE by the creator Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an academic. Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creator is also a financial cheerleader for the subject, which explains the hyperbole in the original version of the article [2] Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page has been shared on Twitter by one of Stuchbery's rivals. Although everyone is entitled to vote, if you came here from that Twitter post, remember that this is not a poll. The decision is made on quality of arguments for and against, not votes. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's call it BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Leonard Petrisor[edit]

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

Seems that the highest league in which this footballer has playes is Serie D, but Serie D is not a fully professional league and therefore this person is not notable. XXN, 22:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY. -- Dane ^talk 00:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor (company)[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate that this company meets WP:CORP. Current references are either extremely brief or primary. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP; I was also unable to find secondary sources. -- Dane ^talk 00:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Awards such as [3] do not give notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there are not yet enough sources discussing this championship in particular to write an article on it. Once more becomes available, the article can be recreated. Anyone wanting to work on this in user space in the meantime can ask me for a copy. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2020 FIA Formula One World Championship[edit]

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

As per WP:TOOSOON — the championship is still two and a half years away. Most of the content of the article duplicates 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship and whatever content is unique to the article is unsourced, speculative and bordering on original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisonermonkeys: to help editors understand your concerns can you please describe:

Which parts of the article you think are unsourced
Which parts of the article you think speculative
Which parts of the article you think are bordering on original research

-- DeFacto (talk). 21:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer numbers 1 and 2 together: the additions of Aston Martin Racing and Stefan Grand Prix to the driver table and the races in Indonesia, Denmark and the Nertherlands are all unsourced, and they are all speculative. The addition of Aston Martin replacing Red Bull, but nevertheless using Red Bull engines is original research because it synthesises a variety of rumours together. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisonermonkeys: so why not just fix those few trivial points or take them to the article talkpage for discussion - rather than trying to get the whole article deleted? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because even without that content it's WP:TOOSOON to be creating this article. Like I said, it just recreates 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship and then adds unsourced and speculative material. An AfD is entirely justified. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisonermonkeys: assuming we make sure that all the content is verifiable, including removing or notably attributing any speculation, and given the near certainty that the event will take place, what persuades you that it is too soon for this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's still two and a half years away. If there was some significant addition, then of course we could reassess, even if that addition was announced tomorrow. But right now, the article has no encyclopaedic value. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main Wikipedia criteria for whether a new article is encyclopaedic is whether the topic passes the WP:Notability test. And this topic appears to me to satisfy WP:GNG in that there is significant coverage of it in reliable sources, so therefore I would say it is a suitable topic for a new article. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider 2019–20 Formula E season, which was recently kept after an AfD. It is about events two years in the future, but is notable for the planned addition of Mercedes and Porsche to the grid. This article is about events two years in the future, but does not have any significant addition(s) relative to the 2019 article and therefore has been created WP:TOOSOON. About the closest it comes to a significant addition is the announcement of the Copenhagen bid, but that still needs to go through feasability studies and get domestic approval before the FIA will even consider it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is way WP:TOOSOON. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because unlike the Formula E article, there is no different information available between F1 2019 article and F1 2020 article. Until this information becomes available, this page should not exist Pch187 (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the nominator was unable to demonstrate any policy-based reason for not keeping the article, and that is what is required for a deletion request to succeed. WP:TOOSOON has been mentioned, but that is an essay relying on this policy-based statement: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." As it is clear that this article satisfies the policy on notability, specifically from WP:GNG that it has gained sufficient coverage in reliable sources, then there is no apparent justification for deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no basis in policy? I specifically mentioned the lack of sourced content and the speculative nature of that content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, @Prisonermonkeys: which policies say that if some of the content lacks a source or is speculative the article has to be deleted rather than improved? The main test for inclusion of an article about a future event is WP:Notability, and the subject of this article easily satisfies WP:GNG, so is an acceptable subject for an article as far as I can tell. PM, I suggest you read Wikipedia:DEL-REASON, and then, if you still think this article should be deleted, come back with a policy-based rationale. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; After removing the unsourced and unverified, we are left with 3 teams, one driver, and 14 tracks, all of whom are only sourced to declarations of "multi-year" contracts (and two of which, Spain and Mexico, cite sources which state the contracts expire before 2020). There has been little to no coverage of the 2020 season specifically in reliable sources. OZOO (t) (c) 12:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way to soon. Not enough specific information for this event has been published. One article on the upcoming season is already quite a task to manage. Two is already over the limit. Three is just overkill.T v x1 11:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too soon. We normally create season articles about ~18 months beforehand, anytime before that and there isn't enough concrete, sourced information. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is an almost identical AfD being discussed here for the 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON for sure. Once more information is confirmed it will be worth having but right now there isn't enough for the article. -- Dane ^talk 00:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by User:Nyttend. gongshow talk 00:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Rouge Productions[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 27 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 (A7) by User:Ritchie333. gongshow talk 00:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mediante[edit]

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

Per source searches, including custom searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 27 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 (t / c)  21:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mph club[edit]

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

Per source searches, including custom searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. No claim of notability or secondary references provided, and almost no content at all. I've seen similar businesses in Las Vegas, and those wouldn't be notable either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. No indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate web page, nor is it a platform for advertising. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleLinx[edit]

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

Has received some source coverage, but the depth of coverage does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 27 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) 18:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn (company)[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the provided references are promotional in nature. Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro B Tech Records[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Lots of big names from the UK's progressive house scene associated with this label, but nothing to actually demonstrate the notability of the label itself. Richard3120 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Also advertorial and fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate web page, nor is it a platform for advertising. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial mentions only. PhilKnight (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to follow up Smmurphy's idea they can do so, of course Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Muncaster[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS. Poorly articulated biography with vague references. Only 1 reference found with passing mentions. The refimprove tag has been in place since a decade with no improvements. Mark the train^Discuss 19:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people who claim that paper money is worthless and seek tax refunds in gold or silve are pretty much the definition of fringiness. We need sources showing widespread coverage for such people which we lack here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article says she was a US political prisoner but the few snippets I have found about her suggest she was "incarcerated in a psychiatric Federal Prison". I believe she fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is a borderline notable conspiracy theorist (who was evaluated in an insane asylum at one point and apparently managed to argue her way out in court while representing herself). She was involved in various incidents, and in a number of court cases, and had some followers. Sources include 1 NYT (but focusing on one of her disciples, with her being covered as background), 1 USA Today, and local Alabama papers (I found some Anniston Star in addition to the ones in the article). However it doesn't look like there is much more out there. Since coverage level doesn't seem to be there - I do not think she meets GNG. The article itself is a mess (presenting a FRINGE viewpoint of Muncaster - e.g. referring to her incarceration as her being a "political prisoner"). I'll note that this isn't far off as it stands - willing to change my vote if WP:HEY comes up with more ample sourcing (variant spelling?) and improves the article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looking at newspapers.com, most of the references to her have to do with her trial for unpaid parking tickets in 1972 (which turned into a larger issue relating the power of government and the sanity of Muncaster - these are represented by the current sources). Beyond that, in 1966 she ran for the California State Senate out of San Pedro, California. In 1976 and 1981 she was again mentioned in the news for refusing to pay penalties or fines. I also see an obituary in the Anniston Star talking about her as a noted protester. I think enough material exists to create an article suitable for inclusion in wikipedia and would support such an article if written, but I don't feel strong enough about it to !vote keep or to improve the page myself. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a WP:FRINGE bio, and the current text of the article claims "She was best known for her outgoing personality.". power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origin8Media[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highbeam, which has decent Philippines media coverage, finds only a passing mention that a film was "Produced by Origin8Media" (Manila Bulletin 2011 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). A couple of other passing mentions via Google go no nearer to WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:AllyD.XFhumu^Talk 20:51, 30 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Pedalers[edit]

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

Not a notable organization; no coverage in secondary sources. I'm not sure if a redirect to AIDS/LifeCycle would be appropriate. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is not clear as to whether they're asserting no secondary sources in the article yet, or no existence of secondary sources. For sources, browsing google there are Ventura County Star and SFGate articles providing some coverage (doesn't have to be exclusively about this organization), and this snippet from a journal article:

End around: HIV Discrimination of the Post-Amendments Act Workplace
AJ Gordon - Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L., 2015 - HeinOnline
... For example, the AIDS/LifeCycle, an annual 545-mile charity biking event between San Francisco
and Los Angeles,2 7 increases awareness about HIV with the involvement of the "Positive
Pedalers," a group of HIV-positive riders who aim to be a "positive face of HIV" through ...

(I can't see the full article), and I expect there is more. The current article is "positive" about the organization but being promotional is a matter for editing, and this is not promoting a commercial product. Also the deceased founder Jonathon Pon and the annual Jonathon Pon 2-Day Memorial Ride have some merit as possibly separately notable and yet are or could be covered in this article as a combo article. --do ncr am 02:54, 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) 00:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 27 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:G4 -- sufficiently similar recreation by SPA that fails to address previous concerns of N, RS and PROMO. Page salted. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BradTheLadLong[edit]

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

The article was deleted on July 4 for a lack of notability. The new edition's content is slightly different, but all the problems remain. It's promotional, largely not based on reliable sources, and does not show that BradTheLadLong meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Huon (talk) 01:31, 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) 00:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G4 speedy applied, salting highly suggested Would have loved to know it sooner, but thus that's how it is. Anyways, outside of the new 'I'm going to waste the police's time on reporting bad comments about me waaaaah' nonsense (and deleted false information about them being cast in the upcoming American Celebrity Big Brother), absolutely zero improvement from the deleted version; vast majority of article sourced to Twitter and 'it exists' news articles. I'm watchlisting this now. Nate • (chatter) 13:33, 28 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. There is no consensus to delete and the nominator now appears to be against deleting the page. The question of whether to keep a standalone article or merge to another is an editorial one that can be addressed outside of AfD, without a deadline. Cheers, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ben-Horin[edit]

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

Sorry for the procedural oddity here. This article was blanked and redirected by Lemongirl942 back in June 2016, citing WP:BLP1E. Earlier this month a new page with quite a lot of original research was created by Alicjapeas, an editor with an undisclosed and likely paid conflict of interest. Dr. Blofeld has proposed restoring the page while trimming the OR. This is why I'm opening an AfD on a page that's currently just a redirect.

I believe Mr. Ben-Horin isn't quite notable enough to merit a standalone article (see WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E). There have been some reliable independent secondary sources that mentioned him, but I haven't found significant coverage. As far as I can tell the secondary sources say he was the founder of Compumentor (now TechSoup) and he has been quoted a few times about the organization in a handful of news articles and books. That doesn't seem like sufficient biographical content to build an encyclopedia article. The guy has also published a number of articles as well, but there are no independent secondary sources discussing them. I agree with Lemongirl942's decision to WP:BLAR the page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks the indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added an improved and watered down version for the purposes of the AFD as you can't leave it as a redirect during an AFD really. I'll try to further alter and reword it and see if I can find anything of substance but at present I agree with Dr Fleischer on the bio coverage. There does seem to be a lot of hits in google books on both his journalism and in relation to his main work though so I don't think this is a BLP1E, it's more a case of, "what is the best way to represent this material and try to avoid puffery and padding". Some of the info is certainly pertinent to this person's organization/background even if not a biography.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good way of putting it, so perhaps we're in agreement after all. Some of Ben-Horin's published commentary about TechSoup might be appropriate for TechSoup. I just don't think it would be appropriate for Daniel Ben-Horin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article was tagged AfD on the basis of probably justified COI but it seems to me that thanks to the efforts of Dr. Blofeld, in its present form and with the sources given, there is sufficient evidence of notability. Some might not consider the Huffington Post a reliable source, but this points to considerable achievement, perhaps deserving further investigation.--Ipigott (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to me misrepresented here. I didn't start this AfD the basis of a COI. I started it on the basis of a lack of secondary sources containing encyclopedic content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Aside from solid sources like SF Chronicle, New York Times, Washington Post, Yale School, Management Review, Fortune, there's too many hits in secondary reliable sources to ignore. He was a prolific journalist (2200 odd hits in newspapers.com), I've found several books for instance which discuss him and a 1975 article he wrote on rape like [4] [5] so he was notable for other things than his group so would make a merge less clearcut, though I can still see an argument to do it. I agree that bio coverage is sparse but that's common with CEOs who tend to be discussed with their companies, their bios tend to be pretty boring as in this case. I think in normal circumstances if we're totally honest nobody would batter an eyelid at having this article and article subjects or people linked with them don't own their content, we call the shots here and ensure that articles are neutral and comply with guidelines. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be at least mentioned in many books! Meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. And the article as modified by Dr. Blofeld clearly proves that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge (as nom). In response to the other comments, the issue isn't about how many reliable sources have mentioned him; the issue is about significant coverage. The sources that mention him (as dutifully listed by Dr. Blofeld) don't have content that would make it into this article. Most of these are simply quotes of Ben-Horin commenting about TechSoup, not biographical material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on now, we've agreed on most things so far and you even agreed that the other article was borderline notable. This has way more (potential) sources. It just about meets minimum requirements IMO too given the sheer number of hits and even if it wasn't suitable for its own article the content would be largely relevant in the main article as a background to the company/formation etc and you know it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to make clear that I support merging relevant, reliably sourced content into TechSoup. Regardless of whether Ben-Horin is notable, I do not think he merits a standalone article, for the reasons given. I express all of my opinions here in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latawnya, the Naughty Horse, Learns to Say "No" to Drugs[edit]

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

A non-notable self-published book.

The primary claim to notability appears to be a lawsuit which was dismissed several years ago. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~: If a book has obtained cult status, which this one has, it is not "non-notable". That and the lawsuits (which mention Wikipedia), and the fact that the book has a sequel, would tend to militate against deletion. Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC); revised 05:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it may have obtained cult status, but apparently not amongst the world's libraries, being held by 8 libraries, all within the US, incidently, i don't see "cult status" as a criterion of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, googling for reviews and trawling through the first 10 pages (mostly blogs and chat sites) i did find these: a short comedy piece in which Jimmy Fallon brings up the book and from Wired a short review/snip by Annalee Newitz, but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- By definition, "cult" means a small but passionate fanbase, non-mainstream, which means not held at libraries. Softlavender (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so not well known/notable?Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It meets notability in my mind, due to its cult status, the mentions in media and popular culture, the sequel, and the lawsuits against Amazon, Urban Dictionary, and Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 16 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) 00:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By all accounts, this book appears no more noteworthy than an item in a "news of the weird" section in newspapers: we don't have an article on every dumb criminal or odd event, even those that get fleeting attention: see WP:DOGBITESMAN. It exists, but the most in depth coverage seems to be "people find this book amusing". I can find no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, only fleeting mentions, and thus fails WP:GNG --Animalparty! (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:WIRED. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all, WP:WIRED is the sole opinion of user Jclemens, and not a policy or guideline. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, and I never said anything otherwise. I think it's the only essay I've ever written which has, as of now, NO contributions from other users. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is number 3 in cracked.com's "10 Great Books For (Traumatizing) Children".--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:35, 27 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 The Paper Hearts. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New Tragedies[edit]

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

All I was able to find was this, but I don't see this as a reliable source and it seems semi-promotional to me, in any case this fails WP:MUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:22, 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)} 05:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Paper Hearts. Some reasonable coverage ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) but perhaps best covered as a side-project in the Paper Hearts article. --Michig (talk) 05:57, 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) 01:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 27 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. Sandstein 08:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Hariharan[edit]

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

Autobiography for bit part actor and jingle singer, fails notability for music Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:17, 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) 04:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG - trivial mentions only. PhilKnight (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Foundation[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Greenbörg (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the four Pakistani military's corporate subsidiaries that include: the Fauji Foundation, the Army Welfare Trust, the Shaheen Foundation, and the Bahria Foundation, with way too many mentions in books plus headlines in media e.g. The Nation & The News. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm finding it difficult to understand how the nominator could come to the conclusion that there is "no in-depth coverage in WP:RS". A simple click on the word "books" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process confirms that there is loads of such coverage. Those searches are there to be looked at, not to be ignored. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are so many sources i'm not sure how this is even at AfD. I suggest the nom withdraw this. -- Dane ^talk 00:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party, USA[edit]

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

This party has done nothing of note, and never had any seat in any election in the history of its existence. It has also not contributed to US politics at all.. ShimonChai (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether they've "contributed" isn't really material here; the relevant question is whether the RCP has received substantial coverage in reliable sources, and they have: examples of continuing coverage of this Maoist redoubt include [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] . In some of the coverage, it's not always obvious just where the line is between material about the party and material about its longtime leader Bob Avakian, but there's enough of both to warrant separate articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't believe it is an appropriate holistic rubric of relevance to judge a political group based on their embededness in current politics. This group makes a marked presence here in NYC and they are getting particular national attention now for their central planning role in upcoming actions [17]. It seems this article needs a lot of cleaning up though, lots more validity and outside sources. Mycoolsighman (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be treated not as a "political party", but as a "think-tank" type group. It's an organization founded by Bob Avakian, if it's not independently notable it should redirect there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the party is itself notable — by a wide margin — independently of its Great Leader Figure. Carrite (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Holy shit, did somebody really nominate this piece for deletion? Big pass of GNG here, by a mile. See the numerous volumes of the Hoover Institution Press's scholarly Yearbook on International Communist Affairs for substantial year-by-year coverage, particularly through the 1970s. The RCP was a Maoist offshoot of the 1960s Students for Democratic Society and is a group that garnered substantial coverage in the American press for burning American flags, protesting so-called "Chinese Revisionism," etc. Mindblowing that this didn't get snowed close Keep in a day and a half, I need to watch AfD more carefully, clearly... Carrite (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing a few sources at the wall as they come from the Google to demonstrate how....... ill-considered......... this deletion nomination is: HERE are the insane squirrels at Breitbart in 2014 running an RCP-Shock headline in a news story... HERE is CBS-TV 19 Cleveland on the RCP's activity there... THIS is the Los Angeles Times on "Fueled by the Flames : Revolutionary Communist Party Sees L.A. Riots as an Opening to Be Seized," from 1992... HERE is Cleveland.com (Plain Dealer?) on the RCP protesting the Republicans in 2016... THIS is a book Heavy Radicals, dealing with the FBI's counterintelligence war against the Maoists in America, which deals ENORMOUSLY with the RCP... There is said to be substantial coverage of the group in the book Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao, and Che... THIS is the Chicago Sun Times on the RCP in Chicago... And I am tired now, this all was from the first page of a Google search. Somebody whack the nominator with a salmon, a trout isn't big enough... Carrite (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more academic coverage, Robert J. Alexander in Maoism in the Developed World, Praeger, 2001. Carrite (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destructiveness (phrenology)[edit]

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

"No sources since 2004! we are not a dictionary" Roxy the dog. bark 18:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Summer. looks like they may be all WP:COPYVIO I have just discovered anyway. theresnorush!!. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ CSD - G12 - The deletion rationale here could use a bit of work. That there aren't any sources in the article is not an indication that there aren't sources available. That said, I don't want procedural quibbles to get in the way of improving the project.) Phrenology is pseudoscientific nonsense. As a result, notability here would hinge on significant coverage in independent reliable sources -- sources that are outside of the universe where the location and shapes of bumps on your skull are indicative of your personality. I have not been able to find any such sources. Yes, there are lots of current reliable sources independent of phrenology discussing "destructiveness", but they're not talking about phrenology. There are old reliable sources independent of phrenology discussing "destructiveness", but Erich Fromm isn't talking about phrenology either. To find anything about phrenology's "destructiveness", I have to go in-universe. Independent reliable sources simply have nothing about this detail of this pseudoscience. Given the parenthetical and limited discussion of the topic at Phrenology, I don't think this makes much sense as a redirect, but wouldn't oppose one if someone feels strongly about it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tagged this for speedy deletion as an apparent copyright violation of [18]. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or temporarily delete as long as the page is not brought up to a proper standard. This page, and the others about Phrenology faculties, were created as stubs but never finished properly, still work in progress. They should be completed with references from reliable sources and illustrations. There remains much work to be done. LHOON (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems absurd to create a stub lacking sources in 2004, do no further work on it, and now call it a "work in progress". Please define "progress". (LHOON has copypasted the comment above also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideality (phrenology), so I'm making the same comment there.) Bishonen | talk 20:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Phrenology is nowhere near as widespread as it once was, and as a consequence, gets no real coverage in independent sources. Articles on individual concepts within phrenology are so unlikely to have gotten any coverage in RSes at all that I feel perfectly comfortable saying "there is no independent, reliable coverage" without even bothering to check. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 27 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 by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideality (phrenology)[edit]

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

"No sources since 2004! we are not a dictionary" Roxy the dog. bark 18:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or temporarily delete as long as the page is not brought up to a proper standard. This page, and the others about Phrenology faculties, were created as stubs but never finished properly, still work in progress. They should be completed with references from reliable sources and illustrations. There remains much work to be done. LHOON (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems absurd to create a stub lacking sources in 2004, do no further work on it, and now call it a "work in progress". Please define "progress". (LHOON has copypasted the comment above also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destructiveness (phrenology), so I'm making the same comment there.) Bishonen | talk 20:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following is the same text I posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destructiveness (phrenology). It applies equally to this article.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Phrenology is nowhere near as widespread as it once was, and as a consequence, gets no real coverage in independent sources. Articles on individual concepts within phrenology are so unlikely to have gotten any coverage in RSes at all that I feel perfectly comfortable saying "there is no independent, reliable coverage" without even bothering to check. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it up for CSD as a copyright violation of [19]. Source page says it was last updated in 1998, 6 years before this verbatim article existed. If, for some reason, the article survives the CSD, Delete - Because phrenology is clearly pseudoscience, we would need independent reliable sources discussing the topic to say anything about it. As the only sources I can find are in-universe, we really don't have anything to say about it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:36, 27 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. Sandstein 08:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Noor Abbas[edit]

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

She seems to have had minor roles in one or two TV shows. only a few name checks does not makes the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on WP. this falls under Wikipedia:Inherent notability. Saqib (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I am creator of this article but still I agree with you. 👍 SahabAli^{говорити} 18:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's no consensus to delete here after two relists. If a merge is appropriate that discussion can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 09:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bauhaus books + coffee[edit]

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

That a funky local store would get local coverage is not a surprise--that's what local papers do. But I contend that the coverage is not broad, deep, and really independent enough for this to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coffee in Seattle#Coffeehouses. This business isn't unique enough or notable enough to have its own article. I found one article in the Kansas City Business Journal that was an in-depth profile of the Bauhaus coffee shop and its history and for a second I thought it was evidence of significant media attention outside Seattle. Then I realized it was actually another Bauhaus coffee in another city, that happened to have the same basic story arc as the Seattle one. Run-of-the-mill, in other words. But still, most of the content fits nicely in Coffee in Seattle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Dennis Bratland--I would not oppose a merge of (trimmed) content. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable business, just one of hundreds in the city. Absolutely none of this is worth merging to the coffee article. Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article. It passes WP:GNG because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This coffeehouse has been the subject of articles in multiple sources including local mainstream newspapers, alternative newspapers, the television news, and a book of iconic local coffeehouses.

The content here would be undue to include in coffee in Seattle. The merge that is mentioned above would be cutting this to 1-2 sentences or even just a list entry. There is no space shortage in Wikipedia and if we have content backed with citations we are not pressed to delete that.

There is no rule that local sources are unworthy of being cited. Yes, this is a local coffeehouse and not of broad international interest, but the sources discussing this are doing so because the place was of interest to local people. Wikipedia already has a precedent of allowing all sorts of local articles to be cited, for example, for biographies of local artists, local art objects, and cultural topics. This article has sources cited over a period of years and that demonstrates that there was lasting interest in the topic from multiple perspectives.

In Seattle this sort of coffeehouse is WP:MILL but in most cities, coffeehouses would not get any news coverage. Seattle is unusual for having a coffeehouse culture where all sorts of coffeehouse trivialities get journalism coverage just because people in Seattle are eager to read that sort of content. This article is a summary of local coverage of local culture and in general, local content has a place on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- "Bauhaus attracts patrons who like to read and study." "The old furniture is part of the atmosphere of the place." Are you joking? This is as run-of-the-mill as it gets! No, Seattle does not have some mystical coffee culture that makes the local coverage of the university paper listing some places to study, a neighborhood weekly noting the opening of a business, or a random blog discussing the atmosphere significant coverage for notability on Wikipedia. Local news around the world covers this sort of stuff too and Wikipedia would be overrun with hundreds of thousands of these articles if that were the bar for inclusion. Please don't point out WP:OTHERSTUFF - art and artists, themselves overrepresented, are not the same. Reywas92^Talk 07:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 I am not joking. Wikipedia is full of articles that say things like "this monument commememorates (something local)" or "this artist's work expresses hope". The significance is not in the words, but instead in the fact that reputable publications found this information important enough to put this kind of information in print. The AfD process is not a critique of what people think is interesting versus what is boring. There is a demographic of people who are interested in reading about coffeehouses and that interest has led to journalism and passing GNG. Check the sources - these are not university newspapers as you say. Even if there were a school newspaper, that combined with other sources can establish notability. Seattle's coffee culture is not mystic but it does meet GNG at Coffee in Seattle which is unusual as compared to most other cities. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 19 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) 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from a few sentences in travel guides all the sources I can find are local. As Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says: ...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Barbara (WVS), WP:GNG says specifically that a article that meets those criteria are presumed to meet the requirements, but not guaranteed. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we accept an article with only local reviews, every restaurant in the country that ever had a few reviews in the local paper could have an article, making Wikipedia a restaurant directory. This fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with the reason given above by StarryGrandma. MB 02:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:GNG because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This coffeehouse has been the subject of articles in multiple sources including local mainstream newspapers, alternative newspapers, the television news, and a book of iconic local coffeehouses. Just because an article can be deleted doesn't mean that it needs to be deleted. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please list two references that you believe definitely meet the criteria for establishing notability and I may reconsider my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SahabAli^{говорити} 17:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications or notability or significance or that the business has achieved a cult following. Sourcing is local and / or passing mentions not meeting WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. There's nothing to merge, so a deletion is the best option when it comes to nn businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. Local coverage is insufficient to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Fails WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coffee in Seattle#Coffeehouses seems like the best option. I'm not certain there's enough unique about this coffeehouse to justify including any content there, delete if there's nothing to merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile[edit]

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

no evidence of notability--one of many such instruments, no significant references to its general acceptance. I cannot understand this except as COI editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I am unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination there is nothing notable. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about a simple validated instrument which is used widely to assess health of individuals hence it is notable. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this argument amounts only to "it exists" DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--As the editor who Prodded the article. No indication of notability. Winged Blades^Godric 15:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SahabAli^{говорити} 11:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abbas (actor)[edit]

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

I think you are mistaken, the details we get from Google and other sources are of Ali Abbas Zafar, a singer. Doesn't manage notability. SahabAli^{говорити} 17:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had third billing in Kisay Chahoon, third billing in Tum Kon Piya, seond billing in Titli (serial), third billing in Nazr-e-Bad, third billing in Khaali Haath so passes WP:NACTOR. Also has coverage in reliable sources such as here and here. The last AFD was 2 September and resulted in keep so this AFD is too soon. Atlantic306

@Atlantic306: Somehow right, but I will wait for others to look after it. SahabAli^{говорити} 17:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject surely passes WP:GNG and WP:ACTORS because he seems to had significant roles in multiple television shows. the bio needs some improved though. I urge the nominator to try alternatives instead of outright nominating pages for deletion. This is second AfD by the same nominator in a month. I suggest this be speedy closed. --Saqib (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was nominated at the Afd less than a month ago by the same editor and was kept by me, after !votes from established editors like Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, ClrView, Saqib and Atlantic306. Nothing much has changed in this Afd since the last Afd. To renominate the article like this could be considered a bit disruptive. SahabAliwadia, I'll suggest you withdraw this Afd at this point. Thanks. Lourdes 10:01, 28 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. There is practically no proper rationale for deleting presented here; just an assertion of failing notability guidelines and 2 !votes based upon the article's references alone. Also, two of the delete !voters have been indefinitely blocked. However, the 'keep' !voters have put forward valid rationales. This close is a no-brainer, despite it being 3-3. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azfar Rehman[edit]

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

The page contains only one IMDb link, which doesn't alonely clarify it's notability. SahabAli^{говорити} 17:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is a notable and an established actor. See G'news [20] for a long list of press on him. --Saqib (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: That is actually what I wanted you to say. There is no any serious editor to cite these references in this article. I have also found plenty of references on this actor, but no-one to add these. SahabAli^{говорити} 11:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a justification to delete an article nor valid grounds for deletions. --Saqib (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PER NOM FAILS wp:NACTOR.Platogrew (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Platogrew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have starred in multiple serials and roles, as evidenced by the online sources available. Mar4d (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC, per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Bunnies[edit]

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

Article has no RS...sources are all web links, many of which are broken. Prelim search only turns up lots of YouTube-type hits. Aside from a few list-links, article is basically an ORPHAN. Written by a SPA, whose 7th edit was creating this article. Related article Françoise Doherty has the same issues. Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. What sources there are mainly tie back to self-published material. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fails Gng. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Françoise Doherty[edit]

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

Article is a CV full of red links and OR. No RS...sources are all web links, most of which are broken. Prelim search only turns up lots of YouTube/Twitter/Facebook-type hits. Aside from a few list-links, article is basically an ORPHAN. Written by a SPA, whose 1st edit was creating this article. Related article The Girl Bunnies has the same issues. Agricola44 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign subject is a notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. What sources there are mainly tie back to self-published material. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:26, 27 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) 19:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda Khare[edit]

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

Non-notable author. I was unable to find any RS covering the subject, non-trivially. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows Khare is a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just saying "published" does not show notability , and there appears to be nothing else DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:47, 27 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) 19:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Amte[edit]

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

I fail to see how he clinches WP:GNG.Notab. is not inherited.Is a recipient of few non-notable local awards. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure promotionalism for him and his hospital. it is possible the hospital is notable; it is possible its founder was notable. But none of that means that he is. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Right Livelihood Award is notable but it does not appear that he actually received it (his father was a recipient in 1991, but that does not make the son notable). No other claims to notability, and heavily promotional. —bonadea contributions talk 18:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and does not qualify per Wikipedia notability guidelines. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would suggest to remove the material which is found to be promotional and keep the article. I do not think it is a promotional article at all. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is not just promotionalism that is the problem; a problem of almost equal importance is that it does not meet either of the two possible standards for notability, either WP:GNG or WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 29 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. The claim of notability falls down owing to lack of evidence, seems like Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breath Counter[edit]

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

Seeking redirect to Abhay Bang.Apparently at this venue, since the article creator has certain problems with my workflow. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even a redirect would be inappropriate. This is a trivial device--an abacus on which a child moves beads to record his breath. The abacus was invented many centuries ago, and the application is insignificant. There is no reason for it to be mentioned anywhere. Writing an article on this, and especially insisting on it, is an indication of COI editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing unique or significant about the invention. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This simple instrument has helped to save thousands of lives in the rural and tribal parts of Gadchiroli. This instrument is used by illiterate health care workers to save lives of newborns. This has surely helped India to reduce child mortality indirectly. Hence this instrument and hence the article is surely notable. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation needed. I don't see any citations that support your claim here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. That something is very useful is not the same as it being notable (according to Wikipedia's definition of notability). --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Sawant[edit]

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

Both I and DGG have agreed on about his inability to pass GNG or any SNG.See User talk:DGG#Notability review.Seeking redirect to Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation; whose notability is in itself doubtful. Am here since the article creator apparently has certain problems with my workflow. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously promotional POV editing, since the contributor refused attempts to redirect the article, which was the only possible way to proceed. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo and not notable. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, there is no need to delete this well referenced article. It is not promotional and this person is notable. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhijeet Safai:--Please go through WP:AADD before partaking in future AfDs.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 05:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:AbhiSuryawanshi, May I kindly request you to comment here? Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhijeet Safai:--Do not canvass.Such behaviour is considered as disruptive.Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any secondary references with non-trivial coverage of this person. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage only. PhilKnight (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis Center of Health Care[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and/or WP:GNG.Looks like an attempt at free promotion. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indiction that this private university's system of health care is significant. Presumably promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion and possibly a COI. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Back in 2012, I was not aware of the COI. Hence I have edited without its knowledge back then. Now, as I understand its importance, I should not edit these articles. Hence I will not be editing these articles, nor will take parts in discussions related to it. I believe in the community power and wisdom of groups at Wikipedia, I am sure they will take appropriate decision for the community. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no opinion on a redirect to Symbiosis Society. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Bauer[edit]

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

I don't see how this nurse satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having a prize named after her is a good indication of notability; also received the highest international nursing award; scope for further expansion from the German article. PamD 17:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can be expanded using sources in German article, clearly notable in the field of nursing. —Kusma (t·c) 08:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, taking a good look on the German article , notability found Yarozika utti (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the nom, this does meet the guidelines. Dysklyver 22:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BEFORE is important and this clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kagojer Nouka[edit]

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

This is not a notable film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered in The Indian Express, NDTV and CNN-News18. Has major actors among the cast. Probably enough to meet our criteria for WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 09:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient coverage in reliable sources to make an acceptable article. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable sources coverage such as Indian Express, CNN-News 18 , IBN and NDTV, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG easily with WP:RS. -- Dane ^talk 00:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep of a film topic that met WP:GNG even when first nominated. The nominator may wish to review WP:V and the intent of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to IBM OfficeVision#Earlier ODPS in Far East. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Office and Document Processing System[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:N, WP:GNG etc. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that can be verified to IBM OfficeVision, the successor product. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to IBM_OfficeVision#Earlier_ODPS_in_Far_East, where the product is discussed. This was a real product and the very basics seem verifiable in in RS. The suggestion by 86.17.222.157 is a good one--merge the verfiable bits into the OfficeVision article per WP:PRESERVE and to place the software in better context of subsequent developments. --Mark viking (talk) 19:45, 27 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} 16:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loylap[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 27 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. Sandstein 08:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Szymanski (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. While the city is large enough that a mayor would be accepted as notable if the article were reliably sourced and contained some actual substance, it's not large enough to hand him an automatic presumption of notability just for existing — and all this actually does is assert that he exists and source the fact solely to the city's own primary source website about itself. But as with any other occupation, a mayor becomes notable enough for a Wikipedia article by having media coverage, not by having a profile on the website of his own "employer". Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequately sourced article on a mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisitiveness (phrenology)[edit]

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

Any referenced content (none!!) belongs at Phrenology and this article deleted. we are not a dictionary Roxy the dog. bark 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or temporarily delete as long as the page is not brought up to a proper standard. This page, and the others about Phrenology faculties, were created as stubs but never finished properly, still work in progress. They should be completed with references from reliable sources and illustrations. There remains much work to be done. LHOON (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It seems absurd to create a stub lacking sources in 2004, do no further work on it, and now call it a "work in progress". Please define "progress". (LHOON has copypasted the comment above also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destructiveness (phrenology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideality (phrenology), so I'm making the same comment there.) Bishonen | talk 20:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion - This is apparently a copyright violation from [21]. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:51, 27 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. Can be redirected to police after somebody adds sourced content there to redirect to. Sandstein 08:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital police[edit]

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

Article deprodded without any improvement. The article has been unreferenced for a decade. The topic has logical flaws; see Talk:Hospital police. There are two possible articles here: Hospital security and Proliferation of police departments. Neither is addressed by this article. Rhadow (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not really distinguishable from the more generci Police. No sources offered and reads like an essay. There may be a notable topic here somewhere, but this article's ain't it. WP:TNT delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a List of hospital police departments could be OK; there are enough blue links in the list on this page. The existing article is entirely un-referenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Police. I did some searching and hold the belief that hospital security are a notable topic, however I don't believe the article serves the purpose properly. I am not ready to write a stub on hospital guards right yet, so am fine with a redirect sans deletion. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to police. Lack of sources. PhilKnight (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect to police as “hospital police” is not mentioned there. If someone is able to add sourced content there, then a redirect would be appropriate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jugglerz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

notability not found . article fails to meet WP:GNG and also fail to meet notability criteria for bands, WP:BAND article fails to meet WP:BIO --Yarozika utti (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC) this is an Article that has just a single newspaper source in Germany , it may be a press released am sure .Yarozika utti (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you have any connection to this duo? as your account is an SPA devoted to deleting their article.

Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the article already has two reliable sources references. However, it needs to be rewritten as it is far too promotional in it's current state. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure promo. Honestly, it feels promotional enough to qualify for a WP:G11 deletion. Samat lib (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it meets G11 or A7, but it's close on both counts. They appear to be club DJs with a a radio show, but aren't notable as a result of either. The article copy has a promotional tone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Burnett[edit]

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

Non-notable career minor league player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Could not find any sources that rise above the level of routine coverage or passing mentions. Also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And even a "career minor leaguer" is a bit generous to someone who never played a full season, finished higher than nineteenth in scoring in any season for his team, or got past the mid-minors. The creation of an editor who came under a community ban from creating new articles for antics such as this. Ravenswing 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: i cant found any sources about him on my google search . *Delete: Yarozika utti (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 06:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 23:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shriver Hall Concert Series[edit]

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

Probably fails NMUSIC and GNG. --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 09:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Return to draft space, was improperly moved into main space by the AFD nominator. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Should reside there to allow improvements, shouldn't of come to mainspace. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:09, 27 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. Sandstein 08:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of China (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Ordinary, orphan, WP:2DABS page where disambiguation is not required. The primary topic has a hatnote to the other (possible) use. De-PRODed by Patar kinght with comment "Deprod - entirely reasonable given the Chinese political situation and because the prior control of the mainland by the ROC forms a distinct period". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no longer 2DABs. In any case, the political history of China would have made it a valid 2DABs, given that both China and Taiwan claim to be China, and since pre-1949 Mainland China (which definitely had cars) was under the Republic of China, which later became Taiwan, and that was a distinct period which had another different definition of China. It would be pretty reasonable for someone to use this as a search term. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is that the PRC vehicle registration system is tripartite because of the One Country Two Systems method of administering Hong Kong and Macau, which are not mere provinces adhering to the vehicle registration system created by Beijing. Coverage for the primary topic is actually divided between three articles, one about the plates in mainland China, which is the primary topic, and then separate articles for the system in Hong Kong and Macau. These three systems/articles combine for complete coverage of "Vehicle registration plates of [PRC] China)". On the other hand, Taiwan only has a unitary vehicle registration system, which provides complete coverage of "Vehicle registration plates of [ROC] China"). So all four articles combined provide complete coverage of all vehicle registration plates in "China". Another reason to keep this is that until 2011 or so, English Wikipedia did not take a side on the China/Taiwan naming dispute, and so it would be reasonable for our readers to believe that a DAB should exist here.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entries for Hong Kong and Macau (arguably Taiwan as well) don't qualify as entries, leaving only one or two entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambiguity is solely from China vs ROC which is bogus as a WP:PTM. If ambiguous we'd have to dab all articles with "China" as it would applt. See also items are not at all ambiguous as subregions not known as "China". Widefox; talk 00:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this page was "Vehicle registration plates of the Republic of China (disambiguation), then the PTM concern would apply. Through the application of the One China principle, both the PRC and ROC claim to be the one and only China (see Two Chinas). This is pretty common knowledge, and people unfamiliar with how Wikipedia deals with naming the PRC/ROC articles could very reasonably navigate here. The status of Hong Kong and Macau as SARs means that their vehicle registration systems are not subsets of the vehicle registration of Mainland China, but legally separate and equal systems in parallel to the main PRC one (i.e. cars that cross over would have two plates). I would also fully support making DAB pages for reasonably common topics shared between the PRC and ROC and some combination of pre-1949 and pre-1911 China as well as HK and Macau. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am part of the minority of editors who think China should be a disambiguation or broad concept article, but the community has decided that the PRC is the primary topic. Since the PRC is primary, no disambiguaton is needed for this topic per WP:TWODABS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Los Hooligans[edit]

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

This band fails the notability guidelines for bands laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 06:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 06:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I had to sort through a lot of Spanish langauge regular wording, I did find they fail the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petscop[edit]

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

Delete: User:Kvng contested the PROD, but I still feel that this article, at least with the current level of coverage in reliable sources, fails the GNG and WP:1DAY. Besides the one New Yorker article, the other two references Kvng cited are low quality clickbait websites. Besides the notability issue, the article as it stands is extremely low quality and contained in large part content I believe to be a copyright violation (I removed it). Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I feel like it's on the brink of being notable, but as a probable hoax we should set the bar a bit higher than 3 mentions in online news articles. If it continues to get more attention you could probably call it notable. Kotaku might have clickbait but it's still a reliable source. Still, don't want to give the impression that if you make something weird enough to get picked up by Kotaku you automatically get an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kotaku, Gamepro, Destructoid. This is at least a weak delete from me. --Izno (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The author's own words make the case: unfinished, only content, fictional, and presumably. Rhadow (talk) 17:32, 27 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. Based on the size of the articles, a merge to Religious violence in India is not feasible. The consensus is that the topic is notable, and that any POV issues should be handled through editing or discussion on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against Muslims in India[edit]

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

Most of the references use the term communal violence and there is article for Religious violence in India .This POV clear Original research and Also, the article is based on a POV of some writers who have who call communal violence between Hindus and Muslims as as "Violence against Muslims in India".But here, the word is not a common word for these incidences and term is the neutral term communal violence .Note this article was deleted earlier here Batikerupt (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC) — Batikerupt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect this term to religious violence in India.No need to duplicate the coverage of the existing articles with yet another one picking out just one victim group, and the existing article is so problematic in terms of POV, distorted quotes, bad title and general tendentious writing style that it's not really worth trying to turn it into something useful. This is original research.All the contents are already present in Persecution of Muslims#India, Religious violence in India and a few more articles and does not contain any content that is not covered in other articles.122.171.75.98 (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC) — 122.171.75.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Obviously through the WP: MEAT to achieve political intent.--O1lI0 (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no substantive evidence in this vote. What are the issues with "POV, distorted quotes, bad title and general tendentious writing style"? And what is the evidence that these are pervasive enough that the page must be deleted, rather than cleaned up? Vanamonde (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — Nominator proposes a merge to an already linked, and very long article which covers religious violence since the 8th Century. The three or four paragraphs there are probably due weight in that context but this topic is objectively large and receives independent coverage by reliable sources. Its relationship with the more general article is appropriate.--Carwil (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In India where I belong the term Communal Violence or Communal riots specfially Violence against Muslims not is used to describe riots between Hindus and Muslims that is what 90% of the references used in the article that is a neutral term with violence started by both Hindus and Muslims on different occasions since 1947.The term Violence against Muslims in India is POV and claims that all violence is by Hindus and not backed references.122.171.75.98 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Without hesitation on my part, I will call this out for what it is: a sorry attempt at meatpuppetry to push some sort of agenda. Are the reliable book sources not satisfactory; how about the several massacres and acts of violence? Hopefully, this is speedily closed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This is not a policy-based nomination. Google Books gives more than 5,000 hits for "anti-muslim violence India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google books gives more than 236000 hits for the term communal riots and that how is mainstream Indian media describes Hindu Muslim riots as Communal riots and this article was deleted earlier Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Muslim_pogroms_in_India.

122.172.215.246 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term Hindu muslim violence 11,90,000 results google hits .The term Violence against Muslims in India is POV is not widely used compared to the term Communal riots or even Hindu Muslim Violence.122.172.215.246 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - By the nominating statement, Anti-Christian violence in India should be deleted because Religious violence in India exists and creating specific sub-articles is pushing a POV and is OR. However, as one might note; Religious violence in India#Anti-Muslim violence and Religious violence in India#Anti-Christian violence both start by linking to a main article that deals with those subject in greater detail. So, much more likely, these two articles exist because the parent article is already at 146k bytes and doesn't need to be burdened with another 90k bytes from the two child articles. Communal violence in India just redirects to the article on religious violence, so there's that to take into account as well (Amendment notice; Communal riots in India doesn't exist [time of amendment]: 01:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)). Thus, I conclude, that the article's existence is not in itself a result of POV, but, a solution to a problem. Whether or not there is POV within the article is not relevant to deletion and should be handled at the article. On the assertion of WP:OR: there are currently 89 citations in the nominated article, most of those are citations to scholarly works. Thus, I conclude, that the existence of the article is not in itself a result of original research, but, of the availability of sources. As previous, any OR within the article is not a reason to delete and should be addressed at the article. That leaves us with the actual deletion question; is the topic notable? At the very least, the prevalence of scholarly sources demonstrates notability via the general notability guidelines particularly that there is; significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At best you could argue to rename the articles to "Communal ~~violence~~ riots against X in India", but, the term "communal ~~violence~~ riots" might not be accessible (or common) to English speakers in all countries. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the 89 scholarly citations use the terms Communal riots .122.172.215.246 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then at best rename to "Communal riots against X in India". Both Communal violence and communal riots are referred to up above and communal violence is specified in the deletion nomination. The point stands that it might not be as accessible to English speakers in all countries which is, presumably, why Communal riots redirects to Religious violence. Your choice of terms isn't going to impact on the notability of the article itself. Renaming is not a valid reason to delete. A rename should be discussed at the article's talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't rename it. Kautilya, myself, and others have provided evidence that this topic has received substantial treatment in reliable sources, not merely as generic religious violence, but as targeted violence. Thus both the deletion and the rename would be inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as the article explains, the violence is branded as "riots" in India, but in reality it is targeted violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That the article's title is an accepted term in literature is a given, and by this point, I don't think any fair editor who's read the discussion would think otherwise. What I would further posit is this:

Individuals claiming that "violence against Muslims in India" is POV because there's also violence against Hindus is not only a good example of Whataboutism, but also itself indicative of bias and POV-pushing on the part of the nominators.
Meatpuppetry, at the minimum, seems rather obvious here. Based on WP:DUCK, a case for a post-AfD SPI could be made if the attempts at ballot stuffing continue.

This is an open-and-shut case; Wikipedia is not censored, and there's sufficient evidence for maintenance of the article with its current name. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Sending this to AfD is silly, to say the least. "Religious violence in India" is a topic that has received substantial scholarly attention. Within this larger topic, violence targeted at Muslims has also received a lot of attention in reliable sources. Kautilya has provided some evidence above: here is more evidence, from a very specific search [22]. The topic cannot be covered solely within the "Religious violence" article; and it is notable in its own right, making this a pointless AfD. If the reality of targeted religious violence is unpalatable to some people, that is entirely their issue, and not Wikipedia's. Vanamonde (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Really don't think this pointless nom. is worth dwelling on. I'm more surprised that this agenda-driven 'AfD' was left this long. Mar4d (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if not Merged — The creator/author of this article, ″Darkness Shines″, is not naïve. The person probably knows very well what he (or she!) is up to.

A quick review reveals this author is associated with pages like Anti-Muslim violence in India & Muslim pogroms in India (which sounds similar to the title of this page!) Earlier instances of deletion of articles throws light on the BIAS which describes ″this particular situation″ and is strictly not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity!
WP:COAT The article appears to be a coatrack article which run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy - in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. HENCE VIOLATES TWO OF THE FIVE PILLARS - WP:COI & WP:NPOV
Fact-picking is evident. WP:CHERRY-PICKING
Clear case of WP:CONTENTFORKING. If any new information is worth retaining then it should be merged to the article RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN INDIA.
The tone of this article lacks a balanced approach and information presented appears lopsided.

P.S.: An editor who is completely novice in this topic may see things myopically. Best if this sensitive issue could be discussed among those who belong to the particular geographical area under consideration or those who have knowledge in this regard.

Following are the four useful references which may help to arrive at a conclusion: 1, 2, 3 and 4 — Anand2202 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further elaborating on my proposal, I would like to point out some (interesting?) observations. The second paragraph out rightly names a political party - Bharatiya Janata Party, which was founded in 1980 - portraying it as the ONE of the main reasons. However, the statistics in the first paragraph shows the incidences well before BJP came to existence. Interestingly, the last sentence under the section Manifestations refer to May 2014. When I googled (location set to India) the keyword ″May 2014″, the result was this. Cherrypicking & violation of NPOV reported by other editors in references mentioned above makes sense in this situation too! — Anand2202 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot is missing to meet the standards of an encyclopaedia. Aren't phrases like ″thought to lie″ & repetitions of ″scholars believe″ used in the beginning of this article vague in nature?—Anand2202 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My rationality calls for the deletion of this article. What I felt for this nomination is corroborated by other editors at AfD proposal for other articles which were SIMILAR to this one. India is a diverse country with a population of 1.3 Billion. There's no denial in the fact that communal tensions disturb the secular ethos of the nation. However, unbalanced information in the articles serves no good. Will be waiting for the result of this deletion proposal. — Anand2202 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only concrete criticisms you mention here are things which can be fixed by simple article cleanup (dates, party involvement, etc.). However, the more serious allegations of cherry-picking, COI, and POV-pushing are unsubstantiated. Simply mentioning the accusation doesn't actually constitute evidence, and to date, every claim on this AfD regarding alleged POV-pushing in the article has included POV pushing against Muslims in India. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable issue with reliable sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing misleading in the title and the contents are appropriately sourced. Yes, some work needs to be done (to remove the tags in the article), but that does not mean this article needs to be deleted. Also it seems that some bias is introduced by the nominator and the IP (which I assume to be a sockpuppet) in the comments. RRD (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject passes the relevant notability criteria. Sources not being available in English is not a valid rationale for deletion, as per WP:GNG. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Che tempo che fa[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. Despite existing for 8 years, no effort has ever been made to establish notability. AussieLegend (✉) 04:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may be unreferenced, but in my estimation it clearly asserts notability. According to the article, the show has been airing in prime time for the past fourteen years, and in its last edition the show made an average prime-time share of 15%, with an audience of 3,500,000 people. That's pretty credible to me. What no one has done for the past 8 years is find references, but that's no reason to delete an article. Unfortunately all of the references that I can find appear to be in Italian so I can't easily tell what they say, but there appear to be a ton of them when I look through the WP:BEFORE. In my opinion sufficient reliable sources WP:NEXIST to sail through both WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG. CThomas³ (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A ton of references on its own doesn't establish notability. I had the same problem that you did. I couldn't confirm that even one of them established notability and the claim that you quoted is completely unsourced so it really means nothing. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said credibly assert, which is not the same thing as establishing via references. The claim is very credible, but it is not backed up by references (that you or I can read, at any rate). Just because the references aren't in English doesn't mean they don't exist, and just because no one has added any doesn't mean they don't exist either. If someone who reads Italian can verify that the thousands of Google hits are all junk, that's one thing, but personally I am not comfortable saying that given the sheer volume of them. You argue that the topic must be non-notable because it has sat idle for eight years. One could just as easily argue that the claims are likely valid as they have stood unchallenged for eight years. I am not saying that they are, but I don't think our default position should be "when in doubt, delete." CThomas³ (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the claim is credible if it can't be backed up by sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with everything you have said, except for the part where you imply that because neither you nor I can read any of the potential references, they must not exist. In the essay you just linked, it clearly states that non-English sources are allowed. As non-Italian readers I don't believe we are qualified to judge the quality of sources available. And if that is the case, the default position must be keep, in my opinion. CThomas³ (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National programs are assumed to be notable per WP:NTV. As long as we can verify this airs on a regional or national network, we can skip the whole significant coverage in multiple reliable sources excercise for this topic. ~Kvng (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is built on verifiability, and without references, the article cannot be verified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you verified that the Italian-language references aren't appropriate? Or are you merely commenting on the unreferenced state of the article? If it is the latter, please see WP:NEXIST. If you can read Italian, it would be most appreciated if you could let the rest of us know what some of the references actually say. CThomas³ (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can understand the (Google translated) Italian sources enough to understand that this is not a local program and so meets WP:NTV. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can understand them, can you add references to the article? --AussieLegend (✉) 20:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you requesting cleanup or are you questioning whether this is actually a national program? ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I wasn't able to verify the sources so the claims in the article don't seem valid, which is why I nominated. I still can't verify the claims as the article stands. If I am able to verify the claims, which will only be possible if the article is referenced, then I can withdraw the nomination. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe it is possible that this is not actually an established program on Italian TV? I put some search links on the talk page. It didn't take too many clicks for me to be convinced that WP:NTV is met. The article does not need to cite evidence of notability to merit a keep, evidence just has to be available. Or like Cthomas3 said, WP:NEXIST. ~Kvng (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the number of hoax program articles that I've seen in the past 12 years editing TV articles, it would not surprise me at all if the claims in this article were outrageous. That's why sources are needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a source in english to the article; is quite a popular talk show, which gives space to lots of important people both from Italy and abroad.--Pampuco (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Practice Space Demo[edit]

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

No indication that this demo tape is independently notable from the band. Can't find anything to meet GNG or NMUSIC. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's no coverage of the demo itself, only passing mentions in sources about the band and notability isn't inherited. DrStrauss talk 14:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Software[edit]

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

HP Software or HP Enterprise software no longer exists as a segment of Hewelett Packard and apparently has been merged into Micro Focus (September 2017) link to article here. Also, the info in this article seems to be routine business announcements. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. I am not sure merging this into Micro Focus in necessary, and may be more work than necessary. A recent attempt to redirect to Micro Focus was reverted here. There is tag dated January 2016 stating the information was out of date at that time. [23] --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HP Enterprise Business. Just a corporate brochure & no value to the project. Almost no valid incoming links, so deletion is a best option here, especially given that a redirect has already been attempted, and was reverted by a SPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, I admit to being a former employee. I came across the page looking for some information, and was quite surprised that there was an independent page for HPE Software. The kind of information I was looking for is not there, and the stuff that is there is incomplete/outdated. So it is definitely a "bad article". While I'd think some of the products, people, and top-level companies are notable enough, they already have their own articles, and this shell wouldn't be needed even if properly populated with facts.98.118.83.208 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hewlett-Packard. Sandstein 08:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HP Enterprise Business[edit]

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

HP Enterprise Business no longer exists as a segment of Hewlett-Packard and apparently has been merged into DXC Technologies (April 2017) [24]. Also, the info in this article seems to be routine business announcements and outdated. No need to merge this material. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND anyway. A recent attempt to redirect to DXC was reverted here.

During December 2015, a proposed merge discussion [25] seemed to conclude this business segment no longer exists, and the information in the article was already 3 years out of date, and this article probably failed NPOV (actual discussion here). Steve Quinn (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a corporate brochure masquerading as an encyclopedia article, and doing a rather poor job at that. That aside, sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Almost no valid incoming links, so deletion is a best option here. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hewlett-Packard. References don't establish notability. PhilKnight (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HP. Valid search criteria. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a WP:MILL news item. (Although, K.e.coffman, this is the rare case of missing black woman syndrome.) Sandstein 08:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Carla Losey[edit]

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

A tragic, but run-of-the-mill missing persons case. I hate describing it as that; however, there has only been local reports on the case, there is no significant societal impact, and, above all else, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a database of missing persons. Remember, verifiability does not equal notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage at this time (per article sourcing, and BEFORE) is sparse and limited to local Columbus media (+ missing person DBs), failing WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough coverage to say this case is notable even it is mostly only based in Columbus, and I have now added a source to the article which is not just a Columbus source. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the very limited coverage, the mainly local sourcing, and above all the simple and unfortunately all too common nature of the single event all imply lack of notability. I'm sorry but deletion is the right answer here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a run of the mill disappearance of a person case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unfortunately, there are quite a few articles of this type: I hope that the creator(s) are not discouraged from contributing but rather learn from this process. - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC) wuill be[reply]

Oh they definitely will be, I know I will be for sure. Why do you feel the need for deleting my articles? Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davidgoodheart I don't have a need intrinsically. Nominating articles for deletion, whether they are "yours" or someone else's, does not benefit my health. But if you need an answer: look at my rationale. This is a good opportunity to learn from past mistakes, and brush up on the notability guidelines that prompted me to nominate this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, when five editors take the time, independently, unpaid, to review an article carefully and thoughtfully, and to explain politely what they found, it's best to go with it gracefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap I have asked some very smart people and they agree with me that just because an person's disappearance doesn't make national news does not mean that it isn't notable, and just because some people think that doesn't make it true. You can ask ten people a question which nine people could answer it wrong and only one could answer it right. That is in fact a reality, and just five people is not a lot of people. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources. Additional sourcing added as well after nom.BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ why do you always provide such a poor rationale for the sake of keeping an article? I have never seen a thoughtful response from you nor any indication that you analyzed the article or relevant policies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an example of Missing white woman syndrome; no lasting significance or societal impact. Does not meet WP:NCRIME either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a true crime blog. My condolences to the victim's family. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 05:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuangru (company)[edit]

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

No reliable sources independently cover this as a topic. There are only promotional materials, content derived from promotional materials, and routine business announcements. Fails CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 27 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 Grace Llewellyn § Not Back to School Camp. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Back to School Camp[edit]

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

Long unreferenced article that keeps drawing regular additions of unreliable content, with no signficant claim to WP:Notability (that it "exists" and is attached to Grace Llewellyn). The program is moderately well covered in her article. I did an initial search for more sources, and am not finding anything significant (mostly blogs, or passing references in non-source parts of books (such as the acknowledgements). Sadads (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grace Llewellyn § Not Back to School Camp, as a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. Source searches, such as in Google Books, are providing some coverage, but not enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 19 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) 23:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 27 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 (t / c)  21:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Spellman[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this (self?) proclaimed TV "star". The refs are lightweight and not independent. No evidence here of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Velella's comments. Additionally, this article has been deleted before, in a virtually identical state to the one it's in now. Just a heads up incase the bot forgets to list it. If AfD is successful, deleting admin might want to WP:SALT the earth a bit. I also suspect some WP:COI issues going on with the article creation. PureRED | talk to me | 17:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

Weak Keep: Author added additional sources after the article was nominated. Was apparently a co-host of a short lived reality TV show on Bravo. Not entirely sure if that counts as notability, I'll wait for other input. PureRED | talk to me | 18:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Reverting to orginal vote, due to review of WP:NACTOR. PureRED | talk to me | 20:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 12 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)}}} 19:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an interrior designer or as a teleivision personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hate to say it but TOOSOON as an interior designer and doesn't quite meet NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 02:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out WP:NACTOR. Having reviewed it, I'm going to change my vote. PureRED | talk to me | 20:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Saffin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. No claims of notability, only one mention in national press. Rogermx (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some coverage of her work, it's not very in depth though, and the show she co-wrote Idle Women of the Wartime Waterways seems more notable than she is (though even it is maybe not notable enough). Articles[26][27][28] Interviews[29][30] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:19, 12 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) 19:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons previous described. A BEFORE was only passing mentions of the subject. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:48, 27 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 04:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Television Festival[edit]

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

This page was deleted as a PROD, with the reason "No reliable third party sources could be found." and recreated. The problem remains the same, as there are no sources that indicate that this is a notable award to receive. menaechmi (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple years ago, there were several pages like this, with a modicum of non-notable awards being distributed. Those pages got deleted. Same scenario here. You'll notice no award pages link to it, nor recipients. — Wylie pedia 05:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable award program / festival; nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Parkway Drive. Compromise between keeping and deleting. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parkway Drive concert tours[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There is one source for the whole thing. Delete per WP:V, WP:NTOUR and other policies and guidelines. Merging is not an option per WP:V--we can't keep content without sources! Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that no sources exist to verify these concert tours? postdlf (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that no sources exit to verify the concert tours, I think that there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources need to show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." That's from WP:NTOUR, not me. I'm sure we can find social media sources promoting the tours and possibly mentions of them. There are probably one-paragraph mentions that the bands are about to embark on the tour, are on the tour, or that the tour just ended in websites devoted to metal and hard rock music. If there's anything that can be sourced, that should be salvaged and included on the artist's own page—probably in prose form, not a table—but a stand-alone article is not needed at this point. What are your thoughts about sourcing? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was asking about verifiability, as you had raised that as an argument suggesting that no sources exist, but now you've made clear that you don't actually think that (and so have necessarily abandoned the claim that "merging is not an option per WP:V"), to instead rely entirely on notability as a basis for deletion. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:00, 12 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) 18:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one else is jumping in so keep or merge. The only argument I'm seeing is that the tours are not independently notable, but these are not articles on individual tours. How detailed our coverage should be of a notable band's tours, and whether there is enough worthwhile content to merit a WP:SPLIT from the parent article, is a question for editors to resolve through normal channels, not an issue for deletion. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parkway Drive: the article fails list notability guidelines and forks content unnecessarily. DrStrauss talk 14:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Dylan Finch[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a blogger, which is referenced entirely to his own primary source content with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him provided at all. As always, every person who exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because directories of his own work exist on the websites of the publications he wrote for -- to qualify for an article, a person needs to be the subject of media coverage written by other people, not the bylined author of coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've found no evidence of significant, independent coverage per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not inherited by contributing to notable publications. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has press coverage with Anxy Magazine (https://medium.com/anxy-magazine/who-gets-to-decide-what-conversations-have-value-ff93c9fa3509) and the Michigal Journal (http://michiganjournal.org/2015/10/27/writing-program-hosts-panel-discussion-to-celebrate-national-day-on-writing/). He is also mentioned on Jes Baker's page because he contributed to her anthology of essays. --decorcione! (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are notability-assisting sources. Anxy is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself, and Michigan Journal is a university student newspaper — which are types of sources that can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by general market media coverage that's written in the third person, but not sources that can be used to bring the passage of GNG. And a person doesn't get a Wikipedia article just because his name is mentioned in another Wikipedia article about someone else, either. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Websites and student newspapers don't carry any real weight for demonstrating notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A New York Times feature is the definition of notability. I never heard that a Q&A format excludes a source, if true then Charlie Rose and Terry Gross interviews would be forbidden, but again they define notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A interviews can certainly be used for supplementary verification of facts in a Wikipedia article whose notability has already been properly demonstrated by stronger third-party and third-person sources — but they cannot be used as data points toward getting the person past WP:GNG if they're the best sources on offer, because people cannot talk themselves into wikinotability. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The New York Times feature (opinion page) is them writing about themself, the Michigan Journal is an interview, ULoop is not about Finch, Upworthy is a blog, Everyday Feminism articles are primary sources, HuffPost is primary, Ravishly is primary, LetsQueerThingsUP is an interview, Medium is an interview, WearYourVoiceMag is only two sencences actually discussing Finch. There are no independent, secondary, reliable sources writing in-depth about the subject. --Darth Mike^(talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources on the subject, as opposed to ones by the subject, to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NYT source is from the "storywall", so I don't think this helps much. Most of the other sources are also problematic (web ephem, obscure, etc). Agricola44 (talk) 17:40, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Hasan[edit]

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

This page has WP:NOTCV written all over it. I see no real coverage in independent sources, and most of the "awards and recognition" are trivia, so the obvious problem is notability. However, the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi is quite a big university in India and the "lifetime achievement award 2015" may rise to WP:NACADEMIC #2. (I am not convinced) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, full of OR, orphan, basically a CV. "Librarian" is not notable per se. Written by SPA whose 1st edit was creating this article. Likely a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication the subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: of the 10 sources the article cites, every single one of them has "profile" in its description. The article is nothing more than a résumé so fails WP:NOT. DrStrauss talk 17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Sauvageau Nestingen[edit]

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

No notability. Won Miss North Dakota in 2012, then was a non-finalist for Miss America. Released unnotable EP and the performed in community theater. Sources are minor or passing without in-depth coverage, and include a WP article ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss North Dakota. She does not meet notability criteria, however, readers will search Wikipedia for information on her. MartinJones (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable state level beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No redirect, as she won the state title as Rosie Sauvageau. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the WP source, moved the article per WP:COMMONNAME, and fixed some other errors. Links under common name would be here:

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

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

The result was keep. Sources demonstrate the article subject plays in the ABA League, thereby satisfying WP:NHOOPS. (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jansen (basketball)[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no removal rationale. As with a number of other recently-created and -deleted basketballer articles, this player hasn't (yet) played in any of the relevant leagues conferring automatic notability, although he's currently on the roster of a team which will play in one of those leagues when it begins. Generally speaking, though, that means that he gets an article when he actually takes the court in the relevant league, rather than beforehand. Current sourcing is better than some, but local/routine mentions only. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Belgian League is a fully professional one and he's going to play in the ABA League, that meet all the criteria. Asturkian (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually neither of those things meet the criteria. -DJSasso (talk)

Delete Nothing I can find shows he meet WP:GNG and he doesn't pass WP:NHOOPS. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See below for multiple substantial independently published sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Neither leagues mentioned equate to inherent notability for a player. The subject needs to meet WP:GNG but fails to reach the bar.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, but we're going to keep getting these as long as NSPORTS keeps up with the bonehead dozen-year-old definition of "fully professional" = "top-flight." That language's sell-by date's long passed and it's confusing to people who say "Wait, what, they're all getting paid aren't they?" Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT doesn't actually say that and hasn't for awhile. At least for basketball. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does for football, which muddies everything else. In a fully professional, 3rd tier league, not everyone should be default notable for one game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this article wasn't aware of the notabilty criteria, see discussions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Garcia (basketball). After being made aware of them he removed the articles not likely to pass or WP:GNG or WP:NHOOPS. The ones left are Daniel Jansen and Eric Garcia, two players who should pass WP:NHOOPS in less than a week when they play their first game in the ABA League. We can be bureaucratic about it and remove them now just to add them again in less than a week (per WP:CRYSTAL ball and all), or we could just wait, this being a new editors rookie mistake which he is now aware of not doing again. Dammit_steve (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With all due respect, deletion advocates, you have this one wrong. Don't care that he's not a player in a pro league, he was the Division II Player of the Year in 2016 and as such passes our General Notability Guideline. The GNG for basketball players is therefore irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that his team was Division II National Champions in 2015-16. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, THIS article from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader clearly counts to GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is another feature story from the Sioux City Journal. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Carrite. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also agree with Carrite. The reason for the nomination made sense but in this case the player has separate notability already.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as DII player of the year. Perhaps another interesting basketball project for newcomers would be adding Division II winners to List of U.S. men's college basketball national player of the year awards. See my suggestion on the talk page: [[31]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the scope of that article is intentionally limited to Division I. Frankly, I'm not sure that winning a Division II award is enough to demonstrate notability. Division II sports just really aren't a very big deal to most American sports fans. Lepricavark (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the sport. DII football is well represented on Wikipedia - DII basketball not so much, but the player of the year, as arguably the best player in the entire division, should pass the notability test. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This player is scheduled to make his debut in the ABA League in about five hours. Please hold off on a final decision until that point and note that any arguments that he doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL will be moot. Let's avoid a deletion followed by an "acceptable" re-creation. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Jansen now officially meets WP:NBASKETBALL, having appeared in a game in the ABA League. See here. Rikster2 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep setting aside that the player will likely meet WP:NBASKETBALL in a few hours, he meets GNG in my estimation (though I found it easier to find sources using "Dan" vs. "Daniel") with sources like this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NBASKETBALL per User:Rikster2 above -- Dammit_steve (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now meets WP:NBASKETBALL, per Rikster2. He probably met WP:GNG & WP:NCOLLATH, even before that, but that's all a moot point now. A real time-waster of an AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to express your opinion, but given the state of the article at the time I came across it, I can assure you this hasn't been a waste of time. Best to remain civil about such things, I would suggest. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NBASKETBALL. I remain unconvinced that being a DII player of the year counts for anything. Lepricavark (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

well, I did provide three substantial articles from three different independent reliable sources above. It’s moot at this point, but since I started looking after this discussion it has appeared that D2 NPOYS do receive coverage enough to meet GNG, at least recent ones where you’d expect to find on-line sources. Rikster2 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly moved to Draft:Jacob Padrón. Consensus would support deletion, but this may be salvageable. The article will either be improved enough in draft space that it can be restored to mainspace through the usual channels, or it will end up getting deleted there as a matter of course. bd2412 T 03:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Padrón[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was done by a student as part of a classroom project, so any promotional tones were accidental. In any case, it looks like the Sol Project is notable at the very least. He's received a small amount of coverage aside from that, though. My recommendations would be to either keep this article based on his notability centering on the Sol Project or to create a new article for the Sol Project and redirect this there, as he seems to be the face of the project. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable low level theatre producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:26, 11 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) 19:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, despite the comments, this was created by a well meaning editor (not going into the don't delete the school project articles argument). while the article could use some work, AfD is not cleanup and this ought to be kept. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. I was certain I was going to vote keep, after reading Aguyintobooks's comment and seeing a reference from the NYT. Trouble is, when I went to read the NYT article, the subject of this article wasn't just not the focus of the article - he wasn't mentioned at all! Ifnord (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 27 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Jesses Smith[edit]

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

No independent coverage to establish general notability or creative notability. Notability is not inherited from subjects or otherwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I located this, but still, notability is not established. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After the AfD notice, I have added many references and included a comprehensive list of films directed by this famous director. Please check page before commenting on whether to keep this obviously notable artist's page on Wikipedia werldwayd (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've corrected the assertion in the article that Mr. Smith directed "most" of 50 Cent's videos – in fact the only videos he was involved with were co-directing with 50 Cent the ten videos made for each song on The Big 10 mixtape, none of which are particularly notable. The film I Do... I Did! which he also directed most certainly isn't notable at all... I can't find a single professional review of this film – good, bad, or whatever – and the article for it should probably be AfD'd as well. That just leaves us with passing mentions or primary interviews of his involvement with 50 Cent's videos and film, and the graphic novel he co-wrote – I don't see enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. Richard3120 (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Sources therein either mention him only in passing or read like press releases. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:21, 27 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 Void. The canvassing has removed half of the regular commentators on pornbio afds such that as a discussion this becomes worthless. I suggest the OP leaves this now and lets nature take its course. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Tucker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While Ms. Tucker does meet the first condition of WP:PORNBIO, because of the Transgender Erotica Awards, that award's notability largely rests on media coverage of the "Trannys" (it's original name) being shared with a transportation award, and later with the name being a derogatory, demeaning term.

While yes, actors from other studios have won the award, it's still a product of the studio she worked for.

When another studio directs people to their own nominations or wins at this award ceremony, they're also exposing their own customers to competing studio's titles. So of course Grooby would nominate and award competitors, it floats their own boat in the process.

Ms. Tucker's own biography is solely sourced to a porn IMDb knock off (and we don't allow that sort of reference), award listings (not even articles), and one article in Bizarre. Indeed, the article tries to disguise its brevity by talking about the larger industry, not connecting it to the actress herself. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:55, 26 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You shouldn't be canvassing just the previous delete votes from the last nomination, Zanimum.[32][33][34][35] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, looking at my edit history back to 2012, I don't believe that I've nominated anything in that range. -- Zanimum (talk) 10:17, 27 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.