Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 April	26 April >

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. Userfication available upon request. Kurykh (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Rutte cabinet

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL; not yet formed (and no guarantee that it will be successfully) Mélencron (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it is likely that a third Rutte cabinet will be created, it is speculation at this point. Wait until it exists. Mduvekot (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy pending events Dloh cierekim 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination (or userfy) – Editør (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There will definitely be a Third Rutte Cabinet as Mark Rutte will be the leader of the largest party in the coalition. As such the cabinet is named after him. 79.77.11.185 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likely but not definitely. – Editør (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone steps forward and asks to Userfy it. Article creatorUser:Nonomuller appears to have vanished, and there being no certainty that an anticipated coalition governments sill form, I don't see what else we can do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Ice Hockey Federation

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

Non-notable organization, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Due to the article's link is either dead or do not exist. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations. AaronWikia (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article provides no sources, and I can find none in my own search that would establish notability. The link to their web site given in the article is dead so I assume they are defunct but there's no way to verify that as there is no coverage of them. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as an idea that failed w/o leaving a trace of notability. while I would like to keep as "notpaper" we need some rs. Dloh cierekim 22:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments above --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what its worth, the wayback machine's last good archive of the official site was June 5 2009, after that the site appears to have stopped being maintained and then became the home for domain squatting. So it doesn't appear that this imitative lasted very long at all given a 2008 start. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Dill

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBASE or WP:BIO. Has not served in a qualifying position with a team in a top-level league, and there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASE; apparent WP:AUTOBIO. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. not in a notable position. no significant coverage. Dloh cierekim 22:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rémi Grellety

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

Someone please correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't this a case of notability being inherited? The film for which he was producer was nominated for a national award— that makes the film notable, but the producer? (the associate producer? The editor? The director? The gaffer? etc.?). A google search turns up twitter, facebook, IMDb, LinkedIn, various directory listings, photographs of him, and ample discussion of the film, but I am not finding discussion of him directly. References are mentions as the producer of the film. KDS4444 (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where are the sources which show he is notable? Google's not showing it and it isn't showing in the article itself either. MartinJones (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he were the director, I would think there might be a way to show the film nomination making him notable. However as the producer I do not think there is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete now if he'd been nominated for an award, that might be different. Subject is nn Dloh cierekim 23:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Christian (DJ)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I can't find any refs. Do not confuse subject with the leader of Anberlin also named Steve Christian. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 16:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete just doesn't pass muster. Doesn't make my heart sing Dloh cierekim 23:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. Sandstein 05:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Fungi

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

Article deleted after expired PROD in July 2016. PROD reason was "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Albeit slightly less new now (the journal was established in 2015), the only difference with the previous version of the article is that the journal is now included in DOAJ, which is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals. Therefore, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt obvious repeated effort to use WP to promote a new journal. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 16:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although there's probably a discussion to be had about where. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement now that the place existed. Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Außenarbeitslager Gerdauen

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

Short version: fails the Wikipedia:Verifiability test.

Long version: This is a obviously a sensitive topic, and must be treated very carefully. I hope I am doing that here.

I note that this article has existed in articlespace since 24 May 2008 and has also been tagged as unreferenced on the same day it was created.

I declined the speedy deletion on technicalities. (Maybe I should have deleted it then and avoided more drama?)

I would argue that this article fails the Wikipedia:Verifiability test. A google search for "Außenarbeitslager Gerdauen" gives only mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Searches for its previous names do not identify anything that would be considered as reliable sources.

I considered whether this article should be WP:REDIRECT-ed to Stutthof concentration camp or Stutthof sub-camps or to the regions in Poland or the Kaliningrad Oblast where the concentration camp was apparently located. Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is some mention of this topic in google books but in German maybe it does exist under English name--Shrike (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. We don't even know if this is real. This should have been speedied. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the stub and redirect name; stub is not notable as presented for stand alone. I see it is mentioned in a sub-camp section, which is cited (although not RS cited), in the main article of Stutthof concentration camp; that should be sufficient. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stutthof main article section on sub-camps Clearly existed according to these history books on Stutthof: Polish book published by Stutthof camp museum and German book about concentration camps, and there are more results when the German sharp s is changed to "ss" for "Aussenarbeitslager Gerdauen," but I don't think there is enough information for a stand-alone article that would not be a stub. Kges1901 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main Stutthof article where it is already mentioned Seasider91 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirecting unless the other thirty-nine subcamps are redirects.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lack of size of an article is no reason to delete. So far the discussion already disproved the allegation that it fails WP:V. While there seem to be no over abundance of regular internet sources there are easy to find book sources. I found Endzeit in Ostpreussen. Ein beschwiegenes Kapitel des Holocaust and Die Todesmärsche 1944/45: Das letzte Kapitel des nationalsozialistischen before even reading the AfD page. It seems we are also missing an article on inmate Zofia Rapp-Kochańska Agathoclea (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~Strong keep - as for V and RS, try searching Gerdauen with other words, such as arbeitslager, aussenlager, lager, work camp, etc. I'm working on expansion and sourcing, what I'm finding isn't really in depth about this location in particular, but the level of significance is substantial. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, I don't have easy access to The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, but the camp seems to be covered in depth in Volume 1 (I'm not sure how many volumes are published, but it is intended to be a seven volume work). Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've changed the word, weak from my !vote to strong. A second and possibly third source with in-depth coverage are:
    - Wolfgang Benz, and Barbara Distel (Editors). Der Ort des Terrors. Geschichte der nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslager Band 6: Natzweiler, Groß-Rosen, Stutthof. CH Beck, 2007 p609
    - Chirurg, Riva. "Bridge of Hope, Bridge of Sorrow." Berkeley: Judah L. Magnes Museum (1994). p151-159
  - Based on the entry in the index, Benz's entry is shorter than the Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia entry, but both of these have an full entry for the camp. Chirurg is an autobiography of a prisoner and survivor which has a chapter titled, "From Gerdauen to Stutthof". I'm not currently located at a liberal arts university, and I do not have access to any of these, but most US or German Liberal Arts universities have one or both. To me, this is pretty clear coverage by multiple independent NPOV scholarly sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, Merge (or redirect) per Seasider91. The main article lists 38 subcamps, spread over a large area. These were apparently labour camps, not death camps, though mortality was high. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to the main article, specifically to Stutthof sub-camps; appears to have existed for a relatively short period of time (Sept 1944 to Jan 1945), if my reading of this material is right: link. Should in-depth sources be located, can be restored to a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent article improvements; an acceptable stub at this point, with potential for expansion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Stutthof_concentration_camp#Stutthof_sub-camps. The current stub has maybe two sentences of independent content. No prejudice for recreation, but for now it would be more useful to expand the section on subcamps in the main article, IMHO.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Night Terrors (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

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

This episode isn't notable. Having been insufficiently referenced for almost four years, it likely never will. This was de-PROD'd without valid rationale so we can have the discussion here. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Was able to very quickly find and add sources for this well known episode of an extremely popular TV series. This AFD seems unlikely to see success. Artw (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks a sufficient amount of reliable sources. It fails to meet the standards at Wikipedia:Notability. The Google search results are sparse which indicates that this was not a particularly popular/acclaimed episode even after four years. I found no awards given to this episode. The best argument for a verdict of "keep" is that Wikipedia attracts the type of editors/audience that are Star Trek fans so an argument of "useful content" could be made. desmay (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's kind of weird, insulting and innacurate in pretty much every regard. Artw (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: There's nothing insulting about Desmay's comments. Further, the sources you added are questionable and I don't think they connote notability. Please try to not be a partisan about this. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with you on multiple counts there, especially regarding the sources and the tone of Desmays comments. Both your comments, TBH. Artw (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's more sourced information in this article than in the other Star Trek: The Next Generation episode articles if you follow the chronology links in the infobox. Some only list the DVD as the sole source. The TV series is notable and readers may want synopsis of plots of episodes. Although somebody might want to find out what the correct spelling of the other ship in the synopsis is, it's spelled three different ways in the article. Libertybison (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made a number of improvements to the article and removed the refimprove and all plot templates as I believe those to no longer be issues (though the new Production and Reception sections could do with expansion). Currently there are no references cited in the Plot Summary section, I believe the AV Club and Tor.com refs more than cover that territory so I did't want to clutter it up. FWIW those two refs should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG, the book refs contributing also to some degree though obviously with reference works it's borderline territory. Artw (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems all ST:TNG episodes are notable. Improvements are well done. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see independent sources mentioning the episode. The episode is part of a noteworthy series which is part of a noteworthy franchise.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the specific notability of this episode is that it is bad. Widely considered bad. Like, 5 worst Star Trek TNG episodes, bad. For a series still as widely viewed as Star Trek TNG, that's it's own category of notability not yet included in the guidelines.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahb the Illuminated: So if there isn't a notability guideline that includes this episode, then why would you argue that it should be kept? Do you think your opinion is allowed in place of consensus? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the notability of the episode is established by independent secondary sources. That qualifies it for inclusion. What's notable about the notability is that the episode is notable for, well, sucking.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. All episodes of the major Star Trek franchises are inherently notable and have been recognized as such for a very long time. It is unhelpful to squander the community's most precious resource, which is the time and energy of its members, on this sort of nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth encouraging editors on one of the SF or TV related projects to go through and add a couple of refs to each of them anyway though, if only to avoid similar doomed AFDs from sloppy deletionists who don't perform WP:BEFORE. Since in every case they are going to be the subject of multiple reviews, recaps and guidebook entries it shouldn't be too hard. Artw (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(this is not me volunteering.) Artw (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: I am neither sloppy not a deletionist. I think we have a real problem. True, I expected some Trekkers to show up but I underestimated the chances an ILIKEIT argument would be espoused by editors that should know better. I'm dispassionately applying the notability criteria. You think all these episodes are notable because there's fan material published? Get consensus to change WP:TVSHOW. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, TBH I was thinking more in general than thinking of you in particular, but you did pretty plainly fire off a WP:IDONTLIKEIT AFD without doing a proper WP:BEFORE and now, instead of doing the proper thing and withdrawing it you're trying to front out some weird case that AV Club and Tor.com aren't proper sources. That's plainly not going to work, so I suggest you save everyone some time and withdraw your nom. Artw (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:WDAFD doesn't allow withdrawal once someone else has supported deletion. Second, AV Club and Tor.com aren't much better than fanzines. I might allow them as sources to back up material in an article but I don't think they connote notability. In any endeavor you'll have fan media that publishes about a niche interest. While I know editors prefer the absolutely loosest definition of WP:GNG, I don't. I did the BEFORE search and I continue to believe this episode isn't notable. I wouldn't have nominated it if I had a question in my mind about deletion policy. The fact that this fan material exists at Memory Alpha makes me question why fans are so dead-set about maintaining it here. In closing, I'll define for myself what "the proper thing" is. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Both of those are paying markets, not fanzines. Artw (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Even when we concede that not all Star Trek episodes are inherently notable, it's sort of inconceivable that any of them would actually fail GNG. This particular episode has been reviewed by numerous major entertainment websites, discussed at length in credibly published TNG and sci-fi reference books, and apparently at least cited in one psychiatry journal article (I can't see beyond the Google Scholar snippet). Clearly notable by our standards. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton:

David V. Forrest (2005). Consulting to Star Trek: To Boldly Go Into Dynamic Neuropsychiatry. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry: Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 71-82. doi: 10.1521/jaap.33.1.71.65882 says:

"A somewhat better McGuffin, and quite similar, is the episode “Night Terrors” in The Next Generation series, which also has an external influence from a “massive fissure” called “Tycan’s Rift” that has caused the crew of another starship, the Brittain, to kill one another. It begins to cause hallucinations in First Officer Riker, paranoid jealousy in Chief Miles, poor concentration and memory for words in Dr. Beverly Crusher, and fear in Worf and Captain Picard. Dr. Crusher figures out that none of the crew is experiencing REM sleep except the Betazoid empathic therapist Deanna Troi, who is tuned into the surviving, “catatonic” Brittain crew member and is having troubling, vivid dreams of a voice metaphorically telling the crew to leave the binary star system via “one moon circling,” which they deduce refers to the hydrogen atom. This voice comes from another, alien ship trapped on the other side of the rift. Troi must communicate by “directed dreaming” so they can cooperate to free both ships. The crew vents hydrogen, which the other ship uses to explode the fissure, and both ships escape the rift with its more or less accurate effects of REM deprivation syndrome. The McGuffin here is more effective, perhaps because most people have experienced waking dream intrusion because of missing REM sleep."

I'm still not seeing GNG. It's a plot summary from someone that consulted on the episode and it's on the subject of using psychology for a premise. It's a mention, not a discussion. The article discusses a dozen episodes across three or four series. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know; thank you for posting that here for review. I agree the source by itself isn't very strong since there's no new analysis or commentary of the episode taking place. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews of the episode in the Reception section show that it passes WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inherently notable. sufficient coverage per se. Dloh cierekim 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered enough to pass GNG --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Riverworld. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jairus Frigate

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

I'd have just redirected it due to total failure at WP:GNG, but the prior AfD had a comment by User:DGG, whom I respect a lot, and if he thinks this is a notable character, well, 10 years later I'd love to hear yours (and anyone else's who wanders to this discussion) thoughts on this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Riverworld. I don't see a lot of analysis of this character. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep very notable series, a notable character as the authorial voice, and an indication of sources talking about it, tho not cited. They should be found.--there's a lot of literature about the author, and some of it probably discusses this. However, I admit I do not have the time to do this myself. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at sources, but I can't see any extensive analysis. A few sources do note he is his alter-ego, yes, but if there is any discussion-in-depth, as much as a single para on this, I haven't found it yet. I would be fine with merge and redirect, but I just don't see enough (either content or notability) for a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are any number of book references The Magic Labyrinth (but not the third Riverworld book of a similar title), Voices for the Future, The Devil gets his Due, Solar Flares, The Transcendent Adventure, Survey of Modern Fantasy Literature talking about how PJF is PJF: That Frigate is Farmer's stand-in in the Riverworld series. The analysis then seems to focus on Farmer rather than his thinly-veiled substitute character. I'd still call that enough to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the series article; not notable independently from it. Sandstein 05:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Yarmouk Teaching Hospital

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews and mentions in gbooks refer to doctors that have worked there. If anyone finds substantial coverage in Arabic I'd reconsider. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP.Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete' no reliable sources. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC) In light of good edits by Smmurphy. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - I've expanded this a bit, the hospital is one of the largest hospitals in Baghdad and well covered by journalists covering victims of the Iraq War. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Smmurphy's keep should be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been added by User: Smmurphy so the article easily clears WP:NCORP bar now. The Al-Yarmouk Teaching Hospital is one of the largest hospitals in Baghdad, Baghdad has a population of over 8,000,000 people and it is the largest city in Iraq. Common sense dictates that one of the largest hospitals in a city the size of Baghdad is inherently notable. User: Smmurphy said the hospital is well covered by journalists covering victims of the Iraq War. Multiple nations have participated in warfare in Iraq so the hospital no doubt is covered by the press in several nations. desmay (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanael Kapner

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

Delete. Subject not notable. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - subject meets threshold of notability for article inclusion.--John Cline (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)~~ Struck !vote and commented anew, below.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how? At the moment, except for a very few sentences in the Ynetnews piece, the article relies on one third-party source, Summit Daily News, a local paper for a county with a population of 30,000. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment is based on a google search of the subject, and not exclusively on the sources included in the article. In my opinion, the search returned enough coverage in independent reliable sources to justify the subject's inclusion.--John Cline (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to some of these RS, please? As it stands now, the subject seems little more than a lone conspiracy theorist, with no following or any claim to notability. Being a lunatic in and of itself doesn't make an individual unworthy of Wikipedia, but being a lone loon does. Scaleshombre (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amen on the "lone loon exclusion". I think that makes for great policy, myself, though I'd be a "loon" to put such a thing forth. And though it would do wonders in keeping the overwhelming amount of cruft out of Wikipedia, (YAY), it would not exclude this subject. While, he's not famous, like Farrakhan, or Moore, he is far from "lonely".

Normally, my prejudice would keep me away from this discussion; I stumbled here by my own intoxication, and I don't mean by drugs or alcohol, but my !vote was misplaced, here. I don't like the subject, nor would I read the publications that write of him. And the closer I look, into the subject, the less I see to defend.

I've stricken my !vote above, and changed it to merge, below. Best regards to all.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge usable content into List of conspiracy theories and redirect Nathanael Kapner there with {{R from merge}}, {{R from person}}, maybe with {{R to list}}, and also add {{Unprintworthy}}. I don't see how he doesn't meet the guidelines for a redirect and perhaps a WP:DABMENTION along the way.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is rather sad actually. Since it's rather sad, I'd rather leave the guy alone, and I'd want an indication this his notability is so high that we kind of must include him to fulfill our encyclopedic mission. I don't see that. Clicking in the link to find refs, the ones that come up first are: YouTube - Daily Stormer - Daily Stormer - Real Jew News - Age of Treason - Stormfront... ugh, that's enough. We don't need to publicize this stuff when its not really necessary. Herostratus (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm also having a BLP tussle with an editor who wants to keep some sad information that is arguably not ref'd well enough and anyway is gossip. Articles like this tend to attract BLP problems. It's worth it if the person is truly notable. For a person who is at best marginal if that, another reason why it is not worth it. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When most of the coverage on a subject comes from a paper serving a county of less than 30,000 we lack any signs of notability. Clearly no reliable 3rd party sources putting Kapner in a larger context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we achieve a sort of "censorship by systemically biased consensus" when we delete subjects by !votes such as are seen here. How else could we eradicate mention of subjects with verifiable knowledge that meets or exceeds our threshold of notability for "nopage inclusion", to exclude it from this living work that endeavors being the sum of all such knowledge, with !votes that amount to "higher bars" for topics we do not like?
While it can not be said that this subject fails our criteria for inclusion, it can be said that we shouldn't include the topic unless it exceeds our inclusion criteria by a margin so great that we otherwise must include it, or that sources used to demonstrate its coverage must not only be editorially independent and reliable in statements of fact, but also, since we don't like the topic anyway, that sources must exceed an arbitrary circulation value of, say; for example: 30,000? Or, one might say, that no 3rd party coverage exists that describe the subject in a sufficiently large context; itself, dispelled by this book alone?
Any who say, knowing an opposite truth, that this subject does not even qualify to be kept as a redirect, even to an article where they are not, as yet, mentioned, is simply being intellectually dishonest in favor of their own biased preference. My own bias is better served with this subject blotted out, but I am remiss to achieving that end by self-serving means.
I find nothing to relish but am not afraid to tell a man digging: he digs with a spade.
Having said all of this, I'll bid thee adieu, saying: "do carry on", lest you've strength to be true.--John Cline (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Binlerce yolculuk ayaklarımda bir mil yürümekle başlar ve ona bütün dünya deri kaplıdır. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book that you point to as providing sufficient context is something that fails basic reliable-sources tests. It's a vanity press. Nor can we claim that it is so influential that even its unreliable content must be seen as establishing notability; judging by its review count and sales rank on Amazon, it may very well have sold zero copies through the biggest bookstore in history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Delete NN not enough RS. While I too am saddened by the state of his soul, even his conspiracy views are NN. He is but one of many disaffected by modern life. In a way, I'm reminded of a Harlan Ellison story, The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Dloh cierekim 10:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is not adequate to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree the sourcing is not there to support a proper article on this person. The bulk of the citations in the article are to Summit News, a local newspaper for a fairly small area with a population of about 30,000. I don't think that's enough - it implies he's a local personality and nothing more, and local newspapers aren't the best of sources for sensitive content. Of the other sources [1] just quotes him as a representative of a certain kind of conspiracy theory and [2] is a primary source. There are BLP implications of writing an article about someone which basically makes them out to be crazy and/or ostracised, and I agree with Herostratus above that it isn't worth it in this case. I don't see why we should mention him in an article about conspiracy theories in general, he's not remotely well known enough for that. Hut 8.5 21:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family Plastics

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL article.No mention in WP:RS other than it's container being used in a bombing. Winged Blades^Godric 12:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Family Plastics is Kerala's number one manufactures of plastic products and I will add more references and details very soon. Please give me some time as I am busy with my personal work.Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Note to closing admin: Rajeshbieee (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this WP:XfD.Winged Blades^Godric 16:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Purely promotional. The editor uses a similar strategy of adding regional language references so as to swindle editors as can be seen in his other articles, including his other ongoing Afd [3]. The 1st reference is to a shopping site which sells their products. The 2nd, 3rd and 7th references are to offline sources, supposedly from Mathrubhumi, though the newspaper has an online presence since 1999. The 4th reference is to Google Photos and the 5th is from their website, both of which are updated by the company themselves, and are therefore Primary Sources. The 6th reference is to a Business awards function which mainly talks about Kris Gopalakrishnan receiving the Businessman of the Year award, while also fleetingly mentioning just the names of 14 companies that received Business Excellence Awards in different sectors, including Family Plastics. The rest of the references are about the London Blasts in which a plastic container made by Family Plastics was used. This is a case of a product WP:ONEEVENT at best, and it was probably just a co-incidence that one of the terrorists chose to buy a container made by the company. Jupitus Smart 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but have a deadline to provide supporting information. Rajeshbieee, wrote: "Family Plastics is Kerala's number one manufactures of plastic products." Wikipedia's notability guidelines often poorly fit developing countries where there are not a lot of strong press outlets - including business press outlets. So even though a company may be notable, it is hard to verify in some cases. Perhaps, a second look needs to be taken in this matter. With some additional thought, perhaps in developing countries alternate criteria could be used. Dean Esmay (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of reliable sources. Depth of coverage is missing as well. We have merely a promise of the business owner to rectify matters with the explanation that he is busy. It is up to the business owner to establish notability if he wants to have a Wikipedia article. This should be done before the article appears and not after. Wikipedian Jupitus Smart says the business owner has a pattern of submitting articles which fail to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements in relation to some other businesses. We should not wait to delete the article. This will merely serve to reward the behavior we wish to see ended.Knox490 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional. The sales pitch included in an irrelevant mention about a decade-past bombing in London was particularly humorous. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and GNG. Pure corporate advert, not one notable feature. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG as I could find no significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and keep a close eye of the article's creator. He appears to be using Wikipedia as a place to get free advertising. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete NN. Not a soapbox or a fleamarket stand. Dloh cierekim 10:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft space. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwimSwam

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

Non-notable website, fails WP:GNG. The only current source which comes near to substantial coverage is an article in the Austin American-Statesman, which looks very local. Note that the article was created by User:WadeDeadpoolWilson, a single-purpose account who created a draft in 2014 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SwimSwam. In Jan 2014 the AFC was declined as non-notable by User:Tokyogirl79, and WadeDeadpoolWilson did not edit again until today, when they created this article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This is not a notable company or organisation that did not pass WP:AfC due to lack of independent and reliable sources. I'm not sure if it's a WP:COI issue, the evidence suggests that the user is just interested in swimming. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I'm trying to get my feet under me with this wiki stuff. Did I do something wrong with the creation process on this page? WadeDeadpoolWilson (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)WadeDeadpoolWilson[reply]
Move to draftspace – benefit of the doubt. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space, per ProgrammingGeek. I also note that if the creator had been more savvy as to Wikipedia's procedures, they could have simply requested a WP:REFUND of the original G13'd draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated to include further sources and emphasize the notability. As I understand it, the prior draft needed more sources reporting directly on SwimSwam itself? The page now includes multiple such sources, including NBC Olympics. As it seems to be pretty rare for news media to report on one another, I can't imagine other similar companies having more sourcing when their wiki pages were created. If there's more editing needed, let me know. I'm a big follower of swimming and was surprised there wasn't a SwimSwam page, as they're basically the hub of all swimming news. I'd like to include more of their award winners and rankings and use that info to beef up pages for specific athletes and meets, but I'll wait until we get the page creation stuff sorted out before I jump to that. Thanks!! WadeDeadpoolWilson (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space, per ProgrammingGeek and NewYorkActuary. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – Rather obvious, given the fact that it was previously a draft. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 23:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rescind Delete Support As per overwhelming support by @ProgrammingGeek:, @NewYorkActuary:, @XboxGamer22408: and @J947:. Many thanks for all your contributions to the discussion! I guess moving to Draft will need to be done after the AfD closes by @BrownHairedGirl:. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If others think that there is something worth keeping, then I have no prob with moving it to draftspace as an alternative to deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support WadeDeadpoolWilson's statement that SwimSwam is a key swimming news website. Their Swammy Awards receive more independent coverage than the site itself does, and are referenced on multiple swimmer's articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Swammy+award. I'd be happy with move to draftspace. Sportygeek (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first four sufficiently demonstrate notability. Draft is pointless, the page is beyond the drafting stage. It's now or never. There are no expected new sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashk Dahlén

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashk Dahlén, a recent CSD-Repost was declined. Still fails to provide sufficient sources to establish notability under any applicable criteria for BLPs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Only 45 cites on GS will not pass WP:Prof. Normally one would look for about 1000 cites, give or take quite a bit depending on field of scholarship, but however much one takes it would not get down to 45. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Dahlén's book Islamic law, epistemology and modernity (2003, 2014 rev. ed.) held by around 200 libraries, would expect some reviews, haven't found any online, on the other hand, his book Deciphering the meaning of revealed law : the Surūshian paradigm in Shi'i epistemology (2001) based on his thesis/dissertation held by around 50 libraries does have reviews in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society pp257-259, here in International Journal of Middle East Studies pp333-334, Islamic Law and Society pp 144-147. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Dahlén's Modern persisk grammatik (Modern Persian grammar) is used as required reading for students of Persian at Swedish universities. He has also been awarded a scholarship by the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. /FredrikT (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty convincing arguments on multiple PROF points, and there do seem to be come non-scholarly sources available too, (for example [4], [5], [6]) although there isn't a whole lot in the English language, but that isn't really surprising. TimothyJosephWood 17:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a pass of PROF to me based on the above sourcing. Lack of English-language availability doesn't really affect the core question. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only around 50 total GS citations. WorldCat says his Islamic Law book is held by 265 institutions, but his other books are almost all single digits (1 is mid double digits). For the record, it doesn't make any difference if one of his books is required reading at some particular school and we don't take websites as convincing evidence of notability. He clearly does not pass any of the PROF guidelines at the moment, but might in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per PROF and GNG. Realiable thirdparty sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which categories of WP:Prof do you invoke? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Alliance (disambiguation)

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

The primary topic is the subject of another Afd, the Warsaw Pact was never known as the Eastern Alliance AFAIK, two entries are partial matches and the last one has no article, so there's not a whole lot there. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only the primary page seems to have been known by this title. Boleyn (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DD68 Redux

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

A series of references reviewing this gun's operation do not constitute coverage of it in reliable independent secondary sources (I do not consider "warpig.com" to be a reliable source). KDS4444 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete reluctantly. but sources are not adequate and I failed to find better. Dloh cierekim 09:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahandar Chattah

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

Unsourced article which has been tagged as such since 2013. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate reliable sources, but were not successful. Recommending deletion if said sources cannot be found during the course of this discussion, with the understanding that populated places and localities are generally recognized as suitable for inclusion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undoubtedly a real place, perhaps misspelt, with many versions praising the local improvements committee, but all from personal knowledge and without citing a single RS. In desperation I turned to Google maps, to at least confirm location, and found no joy there. Dloh cierekim 09:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nawaz

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

Fails WP:NCRIC. bojo | talk 20:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doesn't seems to pass WP:NCRIC. --Saqib (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the player represented Kuwait in its initial developing stages at the highest level cricket Kuwait could play at that time, Kuwait was only an affiliate and played in the ACC trophies. The player also was the first to score an international century for Kuwait, in Pakistan against RDCA. YamDeeYoumar (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— YamDeeYoumar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as prior 2005, Kuwait was only an affiliate, and ACC trophy was the highest level of international representation for the Kuwaiti national squad. Said player participated and has significant scores in ACC trophies 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 with references in the article to further strengthen this point. YamDeeYoumar (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

striked repeated vote. --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ungmennafélagið Víkingur. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ólafsvíkurvöllur

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

Author removed PROD. Hardly any claim of notability, and no sources cited. Doesn't seem to be all that notable, being a 500-seat stadium. Seems to fail WP:GEOFEAT. bojo | talk 20:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ungmennafélagið Víkingur, the club which plays at this stadium. No independent notability as far as I can see. Giant Snowman 10:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above Spiderone 10:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Possible Redirect I think this article is well written and needs a couple more sources, however this might not be enough to establish notability overall and if that is the case than it should be kept as a redirect or merged per the above votes. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hernando Ruiz-Jimenez

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

Unclear notability. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, based on a Google search. Google News has a few hits, but they all amount to relating statements from him. While CEOs and, in tech firms, CIOs often manage to make WP:BIO, executive vice presidents , marketing VPs, etc., generally don't, in my estimation, as their activities are less visible to the public. Largoplazo (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his level of position in business is way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Position not sufficient to have notability on its own. Dloh cierekim 05:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City Mall (Kenya)

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

Unsourced promotional article for a non-notable mall. A Google search revealed no additional sources, aside from a few insufficient short listings and mentions in tourist infos. GermanJoe (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page (a neighboring non-notable building, created by the same author with the same external links):

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

GermanJoe (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable mall. Highly promotional and lacks sources and depth of any. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacks RS. just another mall. Dloh cierekim 09:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Sight

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

Simply paid for unnotable spam. Some of the refs do not even mention the company such as http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/07/katie-piper-acid-attack-eye-sight-stem-cell_n_1259354.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one mentioned the doc but not the center[7].

They have also it appears bought an article about themselves Sheraz Daya. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Telegraph 2005 article has a fairly long description of a procedure which appears to have been new at that time, with some of the description provided by Mr Daya and the unit is mentioned by name. Otherwise, the only coverage is through their involvement in treating a celebrity. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:NORG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sheraz Daya if no additional citations are added. The Telegraph footnote IS a good and valid one, but as the nom mentions, the additional footnotes do not refer to the Center for Sight, only to Daya himself. So they absolutely satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements for HIM, but not for this article. That said, the Telegraph piece is strong enough that it implies the Center for Sight article may well be sourceable but is simply lacking the necessary links. If someone adds one more secondary source with significant coverage of this topic, great. If not, merge it to the article that clearly is notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. -Markeer 15:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'delete advertising brochure of a non-notable clinic. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No objections if relevant content is merged to Sheraz Daya -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as sources lack depth and aren't altogether about the subject. Dloh cierekim 09:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr rajinder toki

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

A recently retired educator at a post-secondary institution in Punjab who, per his Facebook profile, has published 33 books in Hindi. None those books appear to have received any significant critical attention. Mduvekot (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a prolific writer does not make one notable per se. Either the works themselves need to be reviewed, cited, or there needs to be indepdent source indepth coverage of the person in reliable sources. Neither of these are shown by the sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete No joy at WorldCat. One ref on page is to amazon, an ominous sign. T'other failed to mention the subject. Times of India mentions (not in article) are not of sufficient depth. Dloh cierekim 10:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gropp

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

NN amateur hockey player who neither meets the requirements of WP:NHOCKEY nor the GNG. Ravenswing 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Clearly not a notable hockey player yet. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Carter

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

All the links in the BLP is either dead or not showing any connection with the subject of the BLP Bishal Shrestha (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I think this nomination was made entirely too quickly, in the end, I agree that the subject does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion. The dead link (to Amazon.com) was simply a matter of a misformatted link, and was easily corrected in order to ascertain the ISBN for the book and use that instead of the Amazon link. As it turns out, the book, a local history of Arlington, Texas, was published by the Arlington Women's Club -- not known as a powerhouse in the notable book publishing industry. The award which the book won is a local county-wide history award; again, hardly notable on a global scale. Carter's career as a local journalist and historian does not rise to the level of notability required for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a book winning a county-level history preservation award is not a sign of notability. For that matter nothing else here is a sign of notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any notability. Article has been written simply as a class project. Looks like a misuse of Wikipedia and could be a speedy as a person with no evidence of significance. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pachwaniya

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

PROD was removed but I still think this fails WP:GNG. I can find no reliable sources that discuss the clan, nor that would merit the article being redirected. Sitush (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources (only source is a user edited site (that appears to have been edited by the same editor who created the page on Wikipedia). --regentspark (comment) 21:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. Clear consensus that there is no reason to delete at this time. Can certainly be revisited in the future. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitribune

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

There is a WP:SUSTAINED criterion for notability. This site has been launched today, and is currently in a closed beta and unaccessible to the general public: even though this is a website, I think it's worth considering the software notability guidelines, that mention that beta software (not even specifically closed to the public beta) can be notable if substantial "interest and development" is shown by sources that are not simply a "burst of coverage" upon announcement of the product. I cannot see how citations for an article written on the very day a closed website beta is announcement may not be considered a news burst.

Given this website may certainly become notable in the future (or it may not!), and the article is not in terrible shape, I definitely encourage participants to consider a move to WP:Drafts space; yet, since I believe this is an article where parts of Wikipedia itself may have a conflict of interest, and there have been talk page concerns about possible marketing spin, I think this warrants a broader discussion in the form of an AfD. LjL (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *sigh* Just let the article snowball. Also, IF the subject is deemed not notable, just redirect to Jimmy Wales. Deletion unnecessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, calling for snowball upon the very first !vote on an AfD is... certainly interesting (especially by the original author). Having taken part in many AfDs, I am quite reasonably sure that most articles about such a "fresh" topic would far from snowball at an AfD, but, I guess someone who wanted to think maliciously would use this difference as evidence that there is special treatment being granted to this topic. LjL (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AB clearly means he thinks it will snowball. No need to be snarky. My opinion is this: Redirection to Jimmy Wales implies that it's all his enterprise, which it ~~is not~~may not be. I'll wait a bit to see how the article develops, because I'm slightly persuaded by the nominator's rationale that the same day the initiative is announced may be too soon for an article. - Bri (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence my suggestion it might be suitable for a draft. Seriously, the article was almost fully-fledged on Wikipedia at nearly the same time as it appeared on any news sources... This can only make me feel very uneasy, especially considering there is always a large amount of WP:NOTNEWS complaints being thrown around when it comes to covering major world events WP:TOOSOON, while this is, for now, a minor, announced but not open-to-public website that just so happens to be not-so-indirectly connected to Wikipedia. Really, whether or not that's coincidental in reality, what sort of impression does that give readers (who are already there en masse from places like Reddit) about Wikipedia's supposed neutrality? LjL (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable and notability does not expire. In any case, per WP:FAILN, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep. Tech press.[8][9][10][11] Biz press.[12][13][14][15] Political.[16][17][18][19] News magazines.[20][21][22][23] Radio.[24] Television.[25][26] Newspapers.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Academia.[35] I'm seeing coverage in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Italy, Germany, Russia, Argentina, maybe others. One might quibble that these refs are not *all* guaranteed to be RS, or that maybe this will be the last coverage every received, or that this is just 'routine' coverage of yet another web startup being launched by somebody who is often in the news for other reasons, but that is wiki-lawyering. Wikitribune passes WP:GNG and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Even if no other sources are ever published we have enough to write a neutral encyclopedic article already. And that is what we should do. 'COI' disclosure: I have posted to Jimbotalk before ;-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Premature Nomination/Keep for now - Seriously, this kind of slamming an AfD simply needs to end on stuff like this. If you want to re-nominate in several months after an article fails to get written to any degree and if the news coverage for this website stops (which seems to be the nominator's logic for this AfD), you might have a point. This isn't even appropriate at this to time make the kind of argument being made here. As to if this topic is currently notable, the basic test of several independent sources of information can definitely be found that more than deals with questions of WP:NOTE. Arguments about this from a political perspective belong on the Village Pump and definitely does not belong here turning the AfD into something of an indictment of the concept as presented by Jimmy Wales. If this nomination happened several months from now, I might even support a deletion.... assuming the article flounders and isn't much larger than when the nomination was just made. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG based on my searching. Yes, it's launched today, but it's being picked up by as heavy-weight of reliable sources as you can get (Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, CNN, NYT, etc etc - basically everyone). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One section above WP:SUSTAINED we have WP:NOTTEMPORARY which explicitly says that "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This is the case here, as demonstrated by 47.222.203.135 above. One should also note that WP:SUSTAINED explicitly says that brief bursts of coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability; this indicates that even this part of the guideline accepts that there are enough cases where is may be enough. Also, if the nominator's interpretation were correct, we couldn't have any articles on current events; yet, we do and we even have a notability guideline for them which even says don't rush to delete articles. So all in all this is actually really a case of WP:SNOW. On a side note, per WP:ATD this should definitely be redirected/merged to Jimmy's article if it actually weren't a notable topic so deletion would never be the correct way to handle it. Regards So Why 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SNOWBALL. But why even nominate this for deletion? It's a completely legit redirect, isn't it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't see any good reason to delete this, at this time. Danrok (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. I wish editors would stop wasting our time with AfDs such as this one! Edwardx (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for many of the reasons above. It is notable, in many papers all over the world and people want to read about it. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Particles expansion of universe

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

Requesting deletion because it fails WP:NOT Kostas20142 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a steaming pile of WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as junk. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete it looks like original research. Even if it's not, it doesn't seem to be a notable idea within the mainstream of cosmology. No real claim of notability is provided (which isn't required but you might expect to see some evidence of impact, implications, importance, articles/books discussing it, etc.) Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research with zero evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - difficult to read, and wrong, original research. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M V Lakshminarasimhaiah

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

Fails GNG, nothing on Google. No refs currently, doubt notability could ever be established. South Nashua (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources, and can't find any sources so fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO - KylieTastic (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Unruhe

Jason Unruhe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced, not notable Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Addendum While the article has been expanded since the beginning of this AFD, almost all the references are self-sourced articles written by the subject himself; the article lacks credible, third party citations. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Subject comes up quite a bit in a Google search but only mentioned in passing, nothing detailing him to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in-depth, only passing mentions. Even the passing mentions are very few. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the edit history says that I removed the PROD, but I have literally no recollection of doing that,and it appears tohave been an error. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a lot of edit history results when searching "Maoist Rebel News". Not many good sources though. Jamesjpk (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SOAP. The news for which he writes is notable, but not him. This is little more than soapboxing. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tambellini

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

Non-notable minor league player who is yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY or otherwise meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he does. DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; truth be told, I'm curious upon what basis the article was created in the first place. No objections to a redirect to his father's article. Ravenswing 19:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zamaanat

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

Probably (and for future) this film is "shelved" and was in making since 1986. No further any sources claims that film will release. Nominating it for deletion as further SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 15:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC) SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 15:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. The film has not been released and more than likely won't be. Meatsgains (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ling (footballer)

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

Contested Prod, reason given that the player has played in the FA Cup. However, Soccerway confirms he has only played in the FA cup in a match not involving two teams from fully professional leagues. The FA Cup is not in itself a fully professional competition.

Original deletion rationale still stands, namely: 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. Can only find evidence that the player has played at tier 5. Fenix down (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 25 April 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) 16:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as stated above. Monty (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some references to improve the article to meet WP:GNG (which trumps WP:FOOTY) found from a Google News search. In my opinion, it should be improved, not deleted per WP:ATD. 1, 2, 3, 4 Looks like there's also some potential hits on BBC - probably worth a bit more time adding sufficient references @DM Trix: Hmlarson (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all from one local, town-level newspaper. They cant be considered significant coverage as no one outside is town is writing about him. This sort of journalism can be found about many non league footballers. The BBC doesmention him but this is exclusively in routine match reporting and transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFOOTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Sias

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

Only coverage appears to be about the election, which means this fails NPOLITICIAN. John from Idegon (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entered subject's name in Google search and only found 3 articles, and they all relate to his run for office, no independent RS coverage of subject outside of that, fails simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, all coverage is local and related to his run for judge. Fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for political office is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election to get an article because election per se. (And no, being the first transgender candidate for a statewide office is not, in and of itself, a notability boost over other unelected candidates either.) And five pieces of campaign coverage is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of failing NPOL either, as every candidate in any election could always show five pieces of local campaign coverage — so that just falls under WP:ROUTINE. And nothing claimed or sourced here shows any preexisting notability for anything either. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails to meet NPOLITICIAN. Running for political office does not bestow inherent notability. There are no reliable and independent sources that cover him in an indepth manner so he fails to meet WP:GNG standards. If being a winning candidate does not mean automatic notability, certainly being a non-winning candidate does not convey automatic notability. And he is a non-winning candidate. I also agree with User: Bearcat that being the first transgender candidate for a statewide office is not something that causes someone to meet WP: GNG.desmay (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the subject ran for a city/county office (they are the same in Philadelphia) not a state wide office. Which probably makes it even further from a notable case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if elected the subject would not have been notable, holding a common pleas judgeship in a city is generally not enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. per nominator request [36], non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia

AfDs for this article:

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

Obvious, blatant Coatrack and POV fork. Anmccaff (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Stampede

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG, poorly written Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is some definitive bar where "x number of views makes you notable enough for your own WP page," i don't see how this page passes WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Search for "Royal Stampede", definitely notable, they have also played in Tiësto's Music Video "On My Way". Mjbmr (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable YouTuber; sources are tabloid-like. Being in one music video is an insufficient claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - It looks like it's Youtuber open season this week. This particular article isn't an advert, is reasonably written and sourced. A source check does show some coverage from reliable sources (of the group and their pranks) - but it looks to me borderline in quantity.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The *primary* subject matter in the listed sources in all cases is the prank or routine or song, *not* the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hunterrr. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunterrr 2

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

Movie has not begun principal photography and therefore fails WP:NFILM. According to the article filming was to commence in January 2016, but on searching the most recent article found [37] (July 2016) states that the movie is still in the scripting stage. A case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Jupitus Smart 18:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Keep: One of the sources says "The sequel is CONFIRMED". It may be possible that the makers of the film have secretly started the shooting of the film. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 05:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to accuse you of anything, User:Mr. Smart LION, but you have been here for quite some time. Yet you continue to make articles about movies which have not yet started principal photography, knowing fully well that its not correct. And when they are up for deletion, you turn up to ask for a redirect as evidenced in [38] and [39]. You have registered a lot of planned movies with redirect pages including Force_3, Housefull 4, Krrish 4, Ishqiya 3, Tiger Zinda Hai etc all of which are only in the planning stages or are just gossips. As recently as 1 April you created an article and re-directed it to one of the actors. Is this some kind of SEO ploy or are you trying to WP:OWN these pages by creating skeletal redirect pages in the hope that you will remain the page creator when the article is re-instated as and when the principal photography begins. Whatever it is, read WP:CRYSTAL to know why we cannot have pages for films which are being 'secretly shot' (and as I mentioned earlier, the last dated reliable reference says that the movie is still in the scripting stage - and my reference is dated 1 year after yours, meaning the film is not being 'secretly shot') and why therefore it requires deletion.Jupitus Smart 06:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will not create articles on films which have not commenced principal photography. I very well know that films that haven't commenced shooting can't be created here. I started this process because I see many film articles created whose shooting haven't yet started but they aren't marked for deletion. You might not be knowing that besides mine, there are many Bollywood film articles whose shooting haven't been started. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 13:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not go searching for Bollywood movies and your article was a co-incidental find. Anyway if you know about Bollywood movie articles that are against site policies, you should ideally take action and nominate them for deletion. Jupitus Smart 15:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hunterrr. With sources like Indian Express, The Times of India, News18 covering this, at the same time with no substantial material on the film, we should for now redirect this to Hunterrr. Redirects are cheap; and people will search the net for Hunterrr 2. Lourdes 16:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please refer to this discussion before closing - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon (2017 film). It was a similar movie article created by the same user, and had the same problems. That movie is at least slated to start production in May 2017 but there has been no update on this movie (which has probably been shelved, now that the actress has become much more popular than her Hunterrr days). A user strongly argued for deletion in the other oage, citing the arguments presented by me here, and that ended in deletion. I believe that the same metric should be used in this case as well, as a redirect will only prove as an incentive for more such gossipy articles by users, undermining the encyclopedia's policies. Jupitus Smart 19:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jupitus Smart, I've read the Afd above. I appreciate the points you've put forward. If I may, as per general precedent at Afds, redirects should be preferred than deletion when there is a plausible search term. It doesn't matter if Hunterrr 2 has been shelved or not (there is no evidence of that though), with leading news sources covering the term, there is enough logic for redirecting the term to Hunterrr. In an Afd, there's no gain simply deleting articles. Redirect achieves considerable ends. Not only is the contentious non-notable material out of Wikipedia, but any interested reader gets redirected to the closest notable page. Closing Afds as redirects in such cases are supported by our guidelines and policies; please see WP:ATD. Thanks. Lourdes 00:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its good that you think differently. But I stand by my views that such a ploy by an experienced user to own articles by exploiting loopholes in the system, should be rewarded only with a delete as was felt by User:Winged Blades of Godric in the other AfD. It has been about a year since any news about the movie came about, making it doubtful that anybody would even search the term, unlike Dragon which has mainstream actors and was always in the news, before it ended up getting deleted. Cheers. Jupitus Smart 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elenasmodels

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

This is a non-notable company. Looking at the references currently in the article and at the results of web news search, it is apparent that there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Deli nk (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising which is policy-backed removed, no different than their own website. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay (song)

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

This does not appear to have significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources (I could only find a small review from Vibe magazine). It has charted, but it does not seem to have much in the way of actual information. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Are you proposing that this is deleted or merged to the album article? If the latter, please withdraw your nomination and start a merge discussion on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I thought merge was also a valid option as well. I have removed the sentence, as I am proposing deletion instead. Thank you for the note. Aoba47 (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete the page, but redirect the name per WP:NSONG "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." No need for merging as it is already included in Nivea discography. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note! Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving 2011 (The Rainmakers album)

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

This is an article about a non-notable album. It was originally proposed for deletion with the rational: "Does not meet any of the notability criteria for albums, nor the general notability guidelines." The reason given for contesting the deletion was: "I'm not really sure why this article was suggested for deletion. It is one of eleven albums by The Rainmakers. It was released 2011 digitally on Apple/iTunes, Spotify, Amazon etc. <ref>https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/thanksgiving-2011/id488159285</ref>".

I would like to point out to Hemgard, who contested the deletion, that article subjects do not inherit notability, meaning that an album is not necessarily notable simply because it is released by a notable band. Sjrct (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never participated in this kind of discussion before and I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. Thanks to Sjrct for the links to guidelines. I've read them but I'm not really sure where the line between a notable and a non-notable album by a notable artist lies. "Thanksgiving 2011" is the second live album by The Rainmakers. It was released digitally in 2011 on Apple/iTunes, Spotify, Amazon and many other digital services. I don't know if the record itself has been on a chart or not, but I do know that several of the songs in it have been on albums that were on the Billboard Chart and sold gold record in Norway. Also the single "Let My People Go-Go" (this song is on this live album) reached Top 20 in the UK Singles Chart.^[1]. I understand it may not inherit that notability but the same could be said for a number of other live albums by other artists. I hope you'll keep the article about the album "Thanksgiving 2011". Hemgard (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue that this article should be kept, then I would strongly recommend that you look for articles that support that this has received significant coverage from reliable and third-party resources. Notability is not inherited so a single/song can be notable while the album itself is not. Also, the fact that it is made available through the above mentioned mediums does not support notability on its own as there have been plenty of cases in which music that is not notable can be made available on those platforms. I would recommend looking for sources above everything else as (at least in my experience), that is why truly leads to good support for a keep vote. Hope this helps a little. Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasons. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.T. Reeder

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

Apparent autobiography (user Krisreeder10 has created a number of articles about this artist's works including redirecting to this article) tagged for notability since 11/2016. All citations are to event listings, social media, self-cites, Discogs, Bandcamp, etc. No significant coverage in WP:RS available in article or in WP:BEFORE searches. No verifiable evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC for this individual. Some of the collaborations they have participated in may be notable but notability is not inherited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my experience with all of this, everything in the nomination is correct. The user in question appears to be self-promoting their work, padding an article about themselves and producing other articles to promote their work. They even tried to coin their own "genre" for the music - J Grime, which is also (rightfully) up for deletion. It all fails the WP:GNG and reeks of self-promotion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Thanks for doing al the home work. I to feel this is part of a clever promotional. The article contains far more sound that substance, but when one listens closely, the ring of notability is missing. Dloh cierekim 20:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete 30 references provided, not a single one significant, all being of the "whatever-is-on-the-internet-is-a-source" variety, as detailed by the nominator. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Faiz ullaah

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

Another in a series -- or WP:Walled garden, if you will -- of related articles by a recent single purpose account editor. This individual certainly sounds notable, but a Gbooks search turns up absolutely nothing. From what I can tell as a non-admin, it was previously speedily deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up zero. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't even verify existence. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to [40] this article has been deleted once before, on April 14, but I can't tell how. Likely a speedy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It was again an A7 (check page log linked above). Yashovardhan (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- another article on a subject whose notability is unclear. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent further attempts at recreating this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable fluff. Does not seem to have done anything notable. Jupitus Smart 19:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Abu'l Farah Al Hussaini Al Wasti

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

Linked to from Sadaat-e-Bara, this historical person just doesn't yield enough book results that I can find to merit an article. Judging by the article creator's user talk page and edit history, this was created by a recent editor and there is what may be a WP:Walled garden of such articles, at least one speedily deleted and recreated. Final warnings have also been issued to the editor twice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this person is only known due to his relationships, and notability is not inherited. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- a family history article on the family of a Muslim martyr or saint. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Porphyro (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunk tank

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

Almost all the edits to the article are made by two single-purpose-accounts, Bob1764 and Dunktank1. Almost none of the content is properly sourced, delete per WP:GNG. Porphyro (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think making an argument based on the general notability guideline is going to be a tough sell. Dunk tanks are common sights at carnivals, fundraisers, fairs, etc. There is a ton of promotional fluff that can be trimmed from the article, and it certainly needs better referencing, but I think judicious editing will be a better path forward than deletion. I don't think the problems with the article rise to the level of WP:TNT either. Deli nk (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are unheard of in the UK but I can believe I am wrong about notability. Still, I'm generally unhappy with the article remaining as-is in the mainspace. I thought putting it here would at least generate some discussion and lead to a good resolution one way or the other. Perhaps the ideas behind WP:JUNK are relevant here. Porphyro (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of hits. Here's a source. April R. Jervis, 365 Ways to Raise Funds for Your Nonprofit, 2011, page 37. "DUNK TANK A dunk tank is a large tank of water with one transparent side. A person sits on the top. When a target is hit with a ball, the person falls in. Your organization sells chances to throw balls." Goes on to suggest having either a bikini model in a white t-shirt or a teasing clown as your dunk tank volunteer. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just as easily as you can say they are not common where you are from, it's a rare instance where a dunk tank isn't at a local carnival, or even college campus for fundraising efforts. I see nothing wrong with excessive contributions from a few individuals, and I'd argue this easily meets GNG. A rewrite is for sure needed, but I can't imagine how this should be nominated based on GNG alone. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs drastic trimming (which ~~I'll probably get to later~~ I've done). I've also added an Origins section. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposer's comment- in light of the new edits I'm happy to close this as a keep. This was a good outcome for the article, I think! Porphyro (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faroese Americans

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

Non-notable ethnic group. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexander Iskandar: might want to provide a reason? MB298 (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources indicating any numbers for this group, that they exist as a cohenrent group, and in fact the article at present admits a derth of sources to even began the topic discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Biya Baani

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

Searches turned up zero hits for this structure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's a structure? I actually think it's a garbled article about a person (and I've sorted it accordingly). This new SPA has created a whole little WP:Walled garden of them, in fact. I've nominated two more. There may be more to bring to Afd, if reliable sources cannot be found. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Shawn in Montreal - Not sure it exists, but pretty sure the article is about a structure, since it starts out with, "Peer Biya Baani is a famous Mazaar in Bareilly." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Yes, it's possibly more of a WP:COATRACK to link to Sayyid Abu'l Farah Al Hussaini Al Wasti. I've restored it as a places Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot make out what this is about, but it seems to be a family history article on the relatives or descendants of a Muslim martyr. However the whole thing is too incoherent for me to make sense of. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JBovier Stringed Instruments

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

no reliable sources and no assertion of notability Dlabtot (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Company is barely a decade old and article is promotional in tone. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niamh Lyons

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

Doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are passing mentions not substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AtGoogleTalks

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

Was previously mentioned in the Google article. It was discussed in the Google article's talk page and has been removed by LocalNet. He could not find any reliable sources at all. DBZFan30 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was considering nominating this article for deletion myself, but having no experience doing that, I chose to only delete the info from the Google article. I'm happy to see others taking responsibility for nominating, because I really do think this article should be removed. My explanation over at the Google talk page is pretty much exactly my thoughts: An almost total lack of decent sources. The AtGoogleTalks article has a template for needing citations since May 2008, and in the almost 10 years since that, there are yet to be adequate sources for this topic. I tried to do research for finding information, but I was unable to find any reliable, published sources. I think the article is just sitting and gathering dust waiting for sources that will never arrive. LocalNet (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Schine

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

Video game voice actor with no more than passing mentions in overviews of the games. A412 (Talk • C) 18:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High number of mentions in news press. L3X1 (distant write) 02:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC) d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 19:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to some of these high number of mentions? Currently the article only has on reference. Also by showing these sources we can also determine if they are reliable sources (please see WP:IRS) that can help the article meet Wikipedias' notability standard (please see WP:N)..--64.229.167.158 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable VG voice actor with no third-party sources. No mentions of this guy in any "news press" whatsoever. Passing mentions and cast listings in video game previews or reviews don't count. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources covering this person. Moreover, I can't find any mention of him in the one reference the article has now. It seems to discuss only the character he portrays.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re!vote, cannot find anythign directly about or substantitally containing him, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 19:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zinox Technologies

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

no visible notibility Mandavi (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: A few press releases can be seen regarding this firm's activities, most recently in hybrid solar energy and the $25m European Technology Trust Fund loan. The firm is described as "arguably Africa’s most integrated ICT conglomerate" here, in the context of an interview with the founder. There is enough to confirm this as a firm going about its business and possibly important in its local market but I think WP:CORPDEPTH requires more specific and non-primary coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable and hugely popular African technological firm. Darreg (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cool - it its such a notable company, please provide sources that establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. "News" articles appear to consist of run-of-the-mill company-generated articles. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced corporate spam; nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakal (Meena Clan)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any sources that discuss this clan. Sitush (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find a single credible source to say this clan exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no reliable sources whatsoever. --Joshualouie711^talk 16:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not Notable.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: No coverage and possibly doesn't even exist. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bakawat

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this clan. Sitush (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article is not notable. Me too tried but failed to notice any relevant sources. Even if the sources mention this word still it needs the facts showing how the clan is significant and differentiated from other clans of Meena tribe covered in the main article Meena.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't be sourced. --regentspark (comment) 19:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly meets the subject specific guideline. No reasonable chance of anything other than a keep outcome. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Kpenosen

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

Fails NFOOTY - non notable footballer Nördic Nightfury 10:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having played in the Vietnamese top flight, he meets WP:NSPORT. (See WP:FPL). Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have played in V.League 1, Vietnam's top professional league, as per this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - remove my earlier incorrect vote, appears the Vietnamese top flight is listed as a fully professional league meaning player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Kosack (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Sears

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

Non notable model, sources are all tabloids, (daily mail is not allowed), GQ is decent but one GQ source is nothing, the NPR source does not even mention her (it's from 2009), i could not find any reliable sourcing. Dating someone is not grounds for notability too. Sourcing referring to Trump's tape does not prove her notability either. GuzzyG (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only real coverage I could find was for going out with Shane Warne. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ushara

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this clan. Sitush (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would say redirect to Meena, but nothing on that page indicates that this clan exists. In searches I can find people with this last name, but nothing about a clan by this name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject of the article is not notable. Me too tried but failed to notice any relevant sources. Even if the sources mention this word still it needs the facts showing how the clan is significant and differentiated from other clans of Meena tribe covered in the main article Meena.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a hoax. At best not source-able. --regentspark (comment) 19:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10Bet, LLC

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

Fails both the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for companies, as has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.

Most of the references in the article don't mention the company at all, and in some cases it is not clear why they've been added. The ones that do mention the company are Forbes, which includes a quote from the company CEO about Donald Trump but doesn't describe the company itself, and fansided.com, which mentions the company but is not a reliable source. There are also a collection of references to sources like the company's LinkedIn page, which are primary sources and not an independent indication of notability.

Overall, am not seen anything that suggests this company meets the notability guidelines, or comes particularly close to doing so. Euryalus (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising which is policy-backed removed. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sattavan

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find a single reliable source that discusses these people. Creator has displayed a complete lack of competence across a range of articles but seems unwilling to discuss things Sitush (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article is not notable. Me too tried but failed to notice any relevant sources. Even if the sources mention this word still it needs the facts showing how the clan is significant and differentiated from other clans of Meena tribe covered in the main article Meena.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Mahensingha. --regentspark (comment) 20:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Winged Blades^Godric 03:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalmyk Americans

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

Non-notable ethnic group. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember in my days at BYU coming across a book in the BYU library on the Kalmyk Americans. Sources only have to exist, and people have written books on this topic. The article at present is highly questionable, such as the claim the Kalmyks assimilated in Russia, since they are the only historically Buddhist population in Europe, so clearly in some ways they did not assimilate, but having a poor article is not reason to delete, but reason to improve.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Encyclopedia of New Jersey ([41]), Kelvin C. Stuart's book Mongols in Western/American Consciousness, article "The American Kalmyks" in The Mongolia Society Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Winter 1962), pp. 6-8, this from the Penn Museum, "Kalmyks in the United States" article in Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, Volume 41, 2002 - Issue 2, all found from a two minute Google Books search. --Michig (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund F. Murphy III

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

inadequate evidence for notability. Contributed by the same ed. who wrote an article on his company, and nothing else. No separate notability. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be self published and self promoting. Creator seems connected. Reb1981 (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sig cov in independent sources. Neutrality^talk 03:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some additional information added related to retirement policy advocacy. theWalter 10:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people testifying before congressional committees are a dime a dozen. Such an act alone does not make them notable, and nothing else here comes even close to making him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Jo Doornbos

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

The result was Draftify. Per author request ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Jo Doornbos

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

Incomplete. I meant to create a draft for this article first Travsul (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Stacey Jo Doornbos[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Travsul: AfD deletion is not necessary here. You can move the article to Draft:Stacey Jo Doornbos and ask an admin to clean up the left behind redirect. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per author's request herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Rampage: Bodyslam

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

No sources or evidence of notability. Article previously cited one source (GameFAQs, a user-generated source) but it has been removed. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to dig up info on this game a couple years back and had very little luck. Mobygames says it was reviewed in the October 1994 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, but this is false; the issue only has a preview for the game. It may have been reviewed in the November 1994 issue, which I seem to have misplaced. You'd think GamePro at least would have reviewed it, but I have every issue from that period and I don't see a review for Mutant Rampage anywhere!--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any coverage in independent reliable sources that would make this pass WP:NVG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against including the information in an article about her family / the family's business, as per CBS527's argument that the majority of her coverage comes from that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upasana Kamineni

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

promotional and non-notable DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete probable WP:AUTOBIO created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there was only one promotional sentence, which I have since removed. The article still has a way to go, and Kamineni usually only gets coverage in the context of her husband, but there is quite a bit of individual writing (India Today, Femina, Times of India, Verve, International Business Times^{press release, but oh well}). Seems to pass WP:GNG. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article and sources fail to establish notability. What we have is a person who is involved in her family business (Apollo Hospitals Group) - editor of a magazine with a small circulation and distributed by her family business, vice-chairman of Apollo Charity (family business charity). WP:NOTLINKEDIN is part of our policy of "What Wikipedia is not". WP:GNG is a guideline and it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article - not guaranteed that a subject should be included. In this case, the subject should not have a stand-alone article— because it violates what Wikipedia is not. CBS527^Talk 01:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neil Brand. , as the information has already been merged by Szzuk. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stan (play)

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

Notability concerns, there have been thousands if not tens of thousands of media portrayals of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, it isn't clear why this play is notable among them. Szzuk (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since author Neil Brand is notable, a merge to his article seems more sensible than deletion. I found some brief references, including praise for the radio adaptation. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the references included again, in my opinion they are trivial apart from one by the BBC which is primary, so I think this is still a delete. However you have a good point and I will merge this info into Neil Brand. Szzuk (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neil Brand since Szzuk has already merged the information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't see why this play isn't notable enough. It's a play by a well known script writer who has his own Wikipedia article. The play itself has won several awards and has been adapted by the BBC into a radio and TV drama series (which is even easy to track down and watch on YouTube). Both the radio and TV adaptation feature professional actors. Apart from the official site of the BBC I've also added a professional review and source info from an official biography by Danny Lawrence written about Stan Laurel. This makes it far better known and established in media than just a tiny local amateur play. User:Kjell Knudde 6:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

Comment. Procedural note, user is author of the article. Szzuk (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil D. Foster

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

I found no significant coverage. He has such roles as "Board Member #1" and " FBI Agent (uncredited)". SL93 (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The film for which he is apparently "best known" doesn't even have an article. Little evidence of any of his roles being notable. Jellyman (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Winged Blades^Godric 07:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veruli

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

Non-notable film, no independent secondary coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:NFP with plenty of coverage by reliable, third-party independent sources, such as The Hindu [42], [43], [44] and Times of India [45], [46], etc. — O Fortuna^{velut luna} 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordunun dereleri

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of "Ordunun dereleri". Neither of its sources shows "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Eddie Blick (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything except few hits in Turkish, but they don't look promising. If a Turkish speaker can find good sources, do ping me so I can reconsider my vote, but for now I second the nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ordunun+dereleri--Samizambak (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion from the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Cinema

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Masters of cinema

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

No indication of notability. A single refernce to a low-profile online-only "trade magazine". The content is spammy. My searches have found numerous blogs but little of any value for Wikipedia's purposes. If the page is deleted, List of Masters of Cinema releases should be deleted along with it. Huon (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the article had previously been nominated for deletion in 2015. Tokyogirl79 cleaned it up at that time, but even after that cleanup the only source for the prose of the article was the company's own website. By now the article is in no better shape, arguably worse. I would take that as an indication that significant coverage of the series itself simply does not exist and still think the article should be deleted. Huon (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per last nomination. Clearly notable. The company's releases consistently place on the top of DVD and Blu-ray releases of the year lists.[47] Deleting this would be like deleting The Criterion Collection. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some coverage: [48][49][50]. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The releases of this company are highly regarded and are often among the top ten lists at the end of the year[51][52][53][54]Holsheimer (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have had a look at the presented sources, and to me those seem to be mostly passing mentions along the lines of "both BFI and Eureka/Masters of Cinema have had brilliant years", with few details. I (obviously) have not checked all the Google results, but from those I looked at, I rather doubt those are any better. Lots of passing mentions do not make an encyclopedia article. If Rob Sinden and Holsheimer disagree, I'd ask them to improve the article based on the sources they present here - that will prove difficult. Huon (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've started to rewrite the article, to make it more in line with the likes of Arrow Films, The Criterion Collection, Eclipse. I will continue working on it.Holsheimer (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been expanded and referenced post-nomination. Company has coverage in numerous sources, clear notability. Dcfc1988 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am not particularly swayed by the majority of this article's sources, which appear to be press releases. But I am leery of systemic bias and the article (post-rewrite) isn't promotional in tone and the assertion that the subject is the world's largest maker of plastic furniture suggests notability. A Train^talk 10:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nilkamal Plastics

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

A non notable company with only passing mentions in references. Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references which give detailed about company not just passing reference, also its world largest plastic companye.g. here. I dont know how its non notable. Also we should improve articles if they lack in details instead of deleting them. We all here to make wikipedia more detailed as much as we can. KuwarOnline^Talk 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant independent coverage in the article. The company is the primary topic of several of the references. Seems notable. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although other editors above have stated that the company has received "independent" "significant" coverage in "multiple reliable sources", a simple analysis on those sources demonstrates otherwise:

There are 7 references listed. The first and last are from the company's website. They fail as they are primary sources.

The second reference is from a stock exchange feed showing the stock price. This also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it a essentially a listing

The third reference reports on a new business and fails both WP:CORPDEPTH as it is an advertorial, quoting company execs as a news story

The fourth reference is a directory entry and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH

The fifth reference starts out good but then you realise it is another advertorial and fails for the same reasons as the third reference

The sixth reference is another directory entry and fails for the same reasons as the fourth.

I did find one reference - an India Times article which seems to meet the criteria but I cannot find another. If another can be found, I will change to Keep. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not for tracking active companies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/improving-margins-may-earn-nilkamal-re-rating/articleshow/54775660.cms is another good secondary source about the company. I'll add it to the article. There's a fair amount of coverage like it out there, it appears to be a notable manufacturer in India. I would be curious if there's even more media about it that isn't English-language. Remember Wikipedia:GEOBIAS. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has occurred to me that after this article (hopefully) survives this AFD, @home should be merged into it. Instead of two stubs we'd then have one start class article, and there's no reason to separate the store brand from its parent company anyways IMO. @home as I understand is also part of Nikamal, and one that has received a fair amount of coverage. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO; nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides the WP:GEOBIAS there is also a case of sector bias. [55] is probably right in that Nilkamal reminds a lot of Indians about economical, sensible and stackable plastic chairs. However plastic chairs hardly have any scope for innovation or novelty, and there is nothing to write home about them, meaning most of their mentions are related to the performance of the company in the stock market, unlike companies in the IT, Auto sectors which attract news for their new and innovative products. However I believe that being the "world’s largest manufacturer of moulded furniture and Asia's largest plastic processor of moulded products" according to The Hindu in [56] does amount to satisfying my notability criteria. A stubifying can probably be done, and @home merged with this article while probably adding more details about their history from [57].Jupitus Smart 18:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have since done a rewrite. Probably a WP:TNT would not be required now. Jupitus Smart 07:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My conviction was based on the fact that Nilkamal is probably the only company that most Indians, including me associate with Plastic furniture ([58] says its the market leader in India), alongside Supreme Industries. I went through WP:CORPDEPTH, and I think most of the new sources are enough to get it through that barrier, though apparently other editors seem to disagree. And as for sector bias, I still believe that media reports in this country are skewed in favour of new age companies, who pay to get in-depth feature(s) written by reputed media houses, and then pay editors to write glowing Wikipedia pages which cannot be deleted because they supposedly satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH due to the information that they manage to cram in each of these references. Case in point - Trendspotters.tv and AppyStore, which probably nobody other than the sockmaster who created this and the company founders might have heard of ([59]), but which still has enough references to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. If a $310 million worth multinational company cannot supposedly pass WP:CORPDEPTH, but small startups can do, then probably there is something wrong with the system. And don't bombard me with WP:OTHERSTUFF, I am not interested in any more arguments. Jupitus Smart 04:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional. I didn't find any independent WP:RS on it. All or nearly all of the sources in the article are unacceptable. The company may be notable, but that article isn't even close to ready with the sources it has. Start over WP:TNT. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is insufficient sourced information for more than a directory entry, so perhaps a merge is appropriate--at most. The argument about sector bias is not correct -- plastic molded chairs are an important field of industrial design, and some individual designs are probably notable, and possibly individual manufacturers. But apparently there is no evidence that this one is. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie-Ann Morain

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there's not enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The athlete in Question is a joint NATIONAL RECORD HOLDER in Grenada and has represented the country at numerous regional and international events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensfire (talk • contribs) 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds significant coverage in sources not currently available online. She fails NTRACK, and I couldn't find anything online that would count towards GNG; the only remotely good source I could find was this (which calls her Jackieann Morain), but even that's a Boise State paper and therefore not independent. Sideways713 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altered Carbon (TV series)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a television series which has been announced as being in development, but not yet formally confirmed as airing. In fact, it's far from clear that it's even in production yet -- although first announced in 2016, they were still casting major roles as recently as a few weeks ago. And the only sources here so far are the initial production announcement itself, and the casting announcements. But as always, the problem here is that a lot of television series ideas enter the production pipeline but then fail for one reason or another to ever come out the other end as a completed or distributed television series -- so WP:NMEDIA does not grant an upcoming television series a presumption of notability on production announcements alone; it requires us to wait until we know a firm premiere date. No prejudice against recreation once that condition has been met, but television series don't get advance articles just for being in the pipeline. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space to incubate until such time as notability is achieved. Note that drafts are automatically deleted after a certain period of inactivity. bd2412 T 02:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Move to Draft space until an official release date is announced, as per WP:TVSHOW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alone Together (TV series)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a planned television series which has received a preliminary announcement that it's in development, but has not yet been confirmed as to when (or whether) it will actually air. Lots of ideas enter the production pipeline but never actually come out the other end as completed television series (see, frex, Seth Macfarlane's aborted Flintstones reboot, not to mention the countless pilots that get produced and then passed on), so WP:NMEDIA does not grant a series a presumption of notability on the basis of a production announcement alone: the article does not get to happen until the show has been upfronted as a thing that's definitely going to air. No prejudice against recreation if and when that happens, but until then it's too soon. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space to incubate until such time as notability is achieved. Note that drafts are automatically deleted after a certain period of inactivity. bd2412 T 02:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Move to Draft space until an official premiere date is announced, as per WP:TVSHOW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hansi Bar Association

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

Non notable association. Virtually no search results. Also a possible COI with the author ChunnuBhai (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Poor search results point to non-notability and so does the article itself. Knox490 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: State bar associations in the United States are inherently notable. If bar associations in states of India function along the same lines (where membership is a prerequisite to the practice of law), then this should be kept and improved. At the very least, we should have an article on how state bar associations do work in India, into which we could merge this if needed. bd2412 T 02:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think User:BD2412's arguments about state bar associations may be correct, and would mean state bar associations in India may be inherently notable just as they are in the US. However, as far as I can work out, this is not actually a state bar association for the state of Haryana, it is a bar association for the city of Hansi. I think city bar associations aren't inherently notable. Some of course are, e.g. New York City Bar Association, but what is true for New York City will not be true for many smaller cities in the US. In the same way, Hansi is not a particularly major Indian city, so its bar association probably isn't notable, although the case may be made if there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, but I don't see that coverage here. SJK (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Nikolov

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and playing for the Bulgarian national team in divisions 2 and 3 of the world championships is a long way from playing at the top level and meeting WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matic Kralj

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, althoug he did not have many appearances, he did play in the Slovenian Ice Hockey League, which is considered the top professional league in the country, as for the notability guidelines. --Tone 09:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That does not meet any of the notability guidelines though. The instructions for WP:NHOCKEY contain a link to list for each of the criterion, and "top professional league in the country" is not one of them.18abruce (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I missed the list. I thought it was the same case as with the association football, where the highest tier in the country is already enough. Striking keep. --Tone 19:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet the notability criteria for hockey players. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Griffin (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and the accomplishments to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirsen Tikvesa

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no significant coverage and fails to meet any of the notability criteria for hockey players. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubravko Posavec

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet any of the notability critieria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatko Dugandzic

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no significant independent coverage and playing in division 3 of the IIHF championships is not close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Burk

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

WP:BLP, written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, of an artist who has no strong claim of notability per WP:NARTIST and no reliable source coverage to support it; literally the strongest thing here is that she's an associate professor at a small university and the founder of a non-notable local gallery, and the referencing is stacked entirely onto primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage in media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations directory on which an artist automatically gets a Wikipedia article just because she exists; she must achieve something which specifically satisfies NARTIST, and she must have media coverage to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new female editor and I'm part of a project that is trying to create Wikipedia pages for female artists. I've added a couple of media articles, please give me more time to find stronger references for this page. Klkp123 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klkp123, the deletion discussion usually takes seven days and can be extended if further discussion is needed. Make sure you can find quality, third-party sources (see WP:RS) and that the claim for notability is strong: emphasize any collections she is part of, any museum and international exhibitions, any in-depth writing on her work. Reviews are good for third-party references but to help with WP:ARTIST, essays in books, catalogues and so on would help satisfy criteria for inclusion (for both WP:ARTIST and WP:NOT). The article cannot be a cv or a mere list. Try to expand it with prose. I hope this helps. freshacconci (✉) 15:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

freshacconci, thank you for your advice. I will work on that this week. Klkp123 (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article appears to have changed quite a bit since the most recent "delete" vote. Any new opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage about her and her work in this article in The Chronicle-Journal and this article in Miami New Times. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be only trivial mentions. Certainly nothing in-depth there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I do not consider The Chronicle-Journal article to be trivial mention:
The Thunder Bay Art Gallery has been transformed into a world of fables and stories as seen through the eyes of animals with the intricate artwork of Amanda Burk.
The artist was on hand Friday evening at the gallery to launch her show, called Stories of Contentment and Other Fables.
A faculty member at Nipissing University in North Bay, Ont., Burk has been a professional artist for more than 10 years and said this is her first major solo exhibition. She hopes the animal imagery resonates with the people here in Thunder Bay.
...
The artwork is comprised of intricately detailed charcoal drawings on white or black paper depicting a variety of animals found in Northern Ontario.
I do not consider the Miami New Times article to be a trivial mention:
Amanda Burk's installation, Gesture, is a series of five hanging scrolls festooning a gallery wall like political banners. She uses graphite, acrylic, and silver leaf on vellum to depict disembodied hands in a subtle yet striking range of poses. At the bottom of each scroll she includes Arabesque geometric patterns typical of Islamic art. The absence of figural imagery within a religious context in Islamic art is related to the religion's disdain of any hint at idolatry, as explicitly prohibited in the Koran.
The starkly rendered hands, combined with the silver-leaf geometric patterns, create a sense of psychological tension despite the decorative nature of the scrolls.
Are these the hands of some of the thousands of faceless Muslims detained or arrested in the United States following the 2001 attacks? Burk never makes it clear, choosing to avoid outright indictments, but from a spectator's perspective, the hands appear as if they are handcuffed or supplicating across an unseen table and are depicted perhaps from an interrogator's point of view, fingers nervously fidgeting.
Cunard (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per new sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her work meets meet WP:GNG as it has coverage at this article in The Chronicle-Journal and this article in Miami New Times. I realize that drawing artistry is not as glamorous as painters, but that should not be a matter that causes her to be dismissed as notable. She appears to have a strong presence in her niche of drawing. It also seems to me that because bands/musicians often have more popularity with the age group that reflects Wikipedia editorship, it is sometimes easier for them to get articles submitted to Wikipedia. desmay (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Here's a CBC interview as well. Hmlarson (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the interview is here Mduvekot (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage to infer notability. Artw (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article had been expanded to include more sources meeting WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily meets GNG with the new sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Mehlhorn

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

There is nothing on this page that justifies an encyclopedia entry. The person is a former employee of a notable organization and a minor blogger. The page should redirect to Students First as that is a legitimately notable organization for which this person worked for a period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.151.52 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from the article talk page. I remain neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nothing in the article indicates notability -- not authorship of a few articles, nor COO od a major firm (as distinct from what would be the situation if he had written books, and was CEO of the firm). The refs are almost entirely mere notices or articles he has himself written or his own PR bios. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NJToday.net

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

Not notable Biggus Dictus (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources covering it in any detail. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. http://njtoday.net/about-2/history-of-njtoday-net/ says:
  On July 13, 1822, Smith Edgar published the very first issue of the Bridge Town Museum & N.J. Advocate in a print shop on Main Street. That four-page publication is the original ancestor of the current NJToday.Net, New Jersey’s oldest weekly newspaper.
  This is not an independent source. It is from the company's website. But I am listing it here to establish the connection between NJToday.net and the 1822 established newspaper The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate.
2. Clayton, W. Woodford, ed. (1882). History of Union and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey: With Biographical Sketches of Many of Their Pioneers and Prominent Men, Part 1. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. pp. 138–140. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  The book notes:
  
  The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate first appeared as a weekly printed on Saturday, July 13 1822. Smith Edgar was the proprietor and the office was on Main Street but the printing was done at Elizabeth. The terms of subscription, two dollars per year. In the fifth number of the paper, which appeared on the 10th of August, the name was changed to The Runway Museum and New Jersey Advocate. The paper had but five columns on each of its four pages making twenty in all. Under its heading was a motto extracted from one of Shakspeare's plays, "Nothing extenuate nor set down aught in malice." The paper was far from being white, but was as good as that on which the majority of journals published at that day were printed. On the first page a story entitled "lolanda, or the Court of Love a French," was commenced; it was finished in the second number. Besides the story there were given in the first number several poetical selections under the head "Garland of the Muses." In the first column the second page appeared an article on some then instances of "Turkish Barbarity." In the editorial column the editor offered an apology for the that had occurred in bringing out the first issue, which he explained was on account of unavoidable obstacles in getting out a new paper. He also gave notice that a celebration of the national anniversary taken place in New York on the 4th of July, when there was a greater parade than had been witnessed there for years before, and when a new drama "The Battle of Lexington," was performed and was received with unbounded applause. "In own neighborhood," says the editor, "universal exertion was made to celebrate the day, and Milton foremost in its endeavors."
3. Ricord, Frederick W., ed. (1897). History of Union County, New Jersey. Newark, New Jersey: East Jersey History Company. p. 348. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  The book notes:
  
  The first newspaper that we have any record of, as published within Rahway, was the Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate, the first issue being July 13, 1822, and Smith Edgar being the proprietor. The first portion of the title was soon dropped, and there have been numerous publications since that time. In 1840 Josephus Shann established the Rahway Republican, which has been continued under different titles, without cessation, and is now the Union Democrat. The establishment was purchased by Lewis S. Hyer, then of Freehold, Monmouth county, in 1865, and he is still the owner and editor, with John I. Collins as manager since July, 1896. About 1860 the publication of the paper that was at first the Museum and Advocate, suspended, and the appurtenances were purchased by Mr. Shann and consolidated with his establishment. Subsequently a publication was started by a company, taking the title of Advocate and Times (the latter having been the name of a publication also suspended), which has been continued under different titles, and for some time as the New Jersey Advocate, by a stock company, the present editor being Harry B. Rollinson.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NJToday.net to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that above is an argument for notability of The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate, not NJToday.net. Are there independent sources which show they're identical (or even related)? --Biggus Dictus (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources show The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate is notable. I was unable to find an independent source to connect NJToday.net and The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate.

I am fine with renaming the article to either The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate (or the newspaper's latest name that has been verified by an independent reliable source), keeping the "History" section about the paper's history, and removing mention of NJToday.net if no editors can find an independent reliable source that verifies the connection between the two.

Cunard (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming as you suggest makes sense to me.Biggus Dictus (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG (talk · contribs), who declined the speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, I thought there might be sources. I think the ones just mentioned are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & move to the name suggested. Regional papers tend to be notable, and this one passes the test per available sources. The article could be trimmed down though. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter eikenberry

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

Fails NPOL and GNG. Only one source cited (to PRIMARY), a further search finds only two minor mentions in RS. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the simplest standards to establish notability WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:NPOL. Also fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he gets over a notability criterion for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because election per se. While there are claims here (vice-president of the federal bar council) that could get him past our notability standards for lawyers if they were properly sourced and expanded upon with more substance, the only reference here is his own primary source profile on the website of his own law firm. Nothing here entitles him to an article in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass, and there's little to no easily locatable evidence of the depth of reliable sourcing needed to get him over the bar either. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unnotable politician. It is not 100% clear if he was running for the state of US house, but either way a failing candidate is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Allmusic Guide biography of The Rainmakers

[amg-1] Allmusic Guide biography of The Rainmakers

[1]