Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 April	9 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cap City Cyclocross[edit]

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

Article has not a single source. Likewise, google does not find anything independent coverage either. Abovesky (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- completely unsourced and promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 15 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 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy. (non-admin closure) — Chevvin 22:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Academy[edit]

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

Upgraded to AfD due to PROD removal. This is duplication of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy and the article isn't needed and doesn't need to be merged. Govvy (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I had added a Merge proposal to this but it looks like all the info is already in the other article mentioned above, so a Deletion would suffice. It looks like the main reason behind creating the article was simply "but Arsenal have one" (I have also marked that article to be merged into its 'relative' along with a few 'doublers' for other clubs).Crowsus (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Because the creator of the article did the same when he straight copied reserve and academy page to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves which was deleted. And now that just directs back to what I created years before in 2006 was it? the same again happened, he copied parts to a new Academy page these are created in 2014! Govvy (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi I removed the deletion tag, but at that moment I did not notice that there was already an article at Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy. I apologize for my mistake, I should not have removed the deletion tag. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy. Giant Snowman 09:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not sure why redirect isn't the obvious solution. Nfitz (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do you think we need a redirect? If the original article has the most links and use, then people are less likely to use the redirect or come across it. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't off-hand think of an example where the article title is "A and B" where both "A" and "B" wouldn't be plausible search terms. Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - it's definitely a plausible search term Spiderone 19:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As a plausible search term. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - blank and redirect, as others mention it is a valid search term. Once again sorry for my initial edit. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems a perfectly plausible search term. Is what I would type if I was looking for an article on the academy. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per Fenix down DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above--Kostas20142 (talk) 12:16, 15 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, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vihang Sarnaik[edit]

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

Bio that does not assert or show notability. Vihang sarnaik has been deleted previously, and two separate drafts have been declined (Draft:Vihang Sarnaik (2) and Draft:Vihang Pratap Sarnaik, which are essentially identical), and a third draft, Draft:Vihang Sarnaik, also exists but has not been submitted for review. Point is, there seems to be a concerted drive to add an article about this individual to Wikipedia.

As noted in the draft rejections, the individual is however not shown to be notable, as there are no reliable sources supporting notability. The sources are either primary or only mention Vihang Sarnaik in passing (or not at all!) - there is no significant coverage of him. bonadea contributions talk 21:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 10:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything else significant not in the article. Fails Google-news hits (3) - one of them being an extortion charge (where he is mentioned as one of the people called), one is gossip/fashion, and one mentions he tops the most absent listing from corporate meetings.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 14 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, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadab Siddiqui[edit]

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

Non-notable director of short film. Article lacks non-trivial support reddogsix (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:TOSOON. He did make a single short film Where Is Najeeb that appears to have gained a lot of attention in reliable sources, which might qualify him for notability under criterion #4 of WP:DIRECTOR, but that criterion requires that his works (plural) or "work" (as in "body of work") has gained significant critical attention, and this is just one short film. I cannot tell from the non-English sources, even when translated, that they qualify as "significant critical attention" or are just reviews by non-notable reviewers. There are Google hits on the name but it's hard to find sources that qualify as reliable and independent. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one notable short film ~~only body of work~~ is not enough to justify an article as it seems WP:TOOSOON at this time, though hopefully he will qualify a little later in his career Atlantic306 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't his only body of work, he's made other short films, but that one appears to have garnered some attention. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, have corrected my comment Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 10 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, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Harwell[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, plus article has never been improved nor properly sourced since its creation a decade ago. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete film reference doesn't show any major roles to meet WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sorry to hear of his recent death, but there are no sources to show he merits inclusion in an encyclopaedia. His roles were not enough to meet WP:ENT and I failed to find sources meeting the general notability guideline. MartinJones (talk) 17:06, 14 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) 21:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Classics Seeds[edit]

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

No coverage at all that I can find, except this one competition where the others were disqualified for using pesticides, which is actually kindof an argument against the subject, since it's kindof like being the winner of a race where everybody else was disqualified for using steroids. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; no significance or notability established. Close to A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 10 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. Michig (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Arif[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker, who appears to self-publish films on Facebook and has not been the subject of significant independent coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as filmmaker or actor. Boneymau (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete complete lack of sources to demonstrate WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NACTOR and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable movie maker. Fails WP:NACTOR. Searching provides many sources though all of them are not about this person. Jupitus Smart 16:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, but also doesn't pas GNG--Kostas20142 (talk) 12:20, 15 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) 21:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard James Stringer[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Non-noteable local news anchor. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - run of the mill, local TV presenter. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any sources regarding this person online, hence I doubt their notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:25, 15 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) Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsy (company)[edit]

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

Just another online retailer with marginal notability the sources here are multiply cited company website, press releases, and the USERGENERATED crunchbase and owler databases. There are a couple of independent refs that discuss the company but they are mostly about Michelle Phan who has her own article. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has been through the Draft process at least twice now, and its fundamental problems haven't been addressed. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added business publication references to "Further reading". The student editor creating this was not familiar with our requirement that sources be independent and about the company, not the founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 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) 21:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masoumeh Ataei[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Of the two references, one is an entry in a series of 100 "inspiring women" (not "most important" as 104.163.140.228 said when removing the PROD), the other is a primary source giving Ataei's own words. My own searches didn't find anything better. Huon (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _{Very Busy} 01:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in sources both within the article or on searching to satisfy the biographical or general notability guidelines. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:13, 16 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 Behdad Sami#Behdad Sami Interactive. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behdad Sami Interactive[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON as this video game company has only produced one game Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure how to respond to an AFD. I believe I did it incorrectly when I edited the Behdad Sami Interactive page last, so my apologies. I don't believe this page should be deleted because every company has to start somewhere, so by saying they only have one game is not a good enough reason to remove their company. Behdad Sami Interactive is an LLC, with its HQ in California. They have enough sources to find credible. This page was also created yesterday, despite this company being around for almost 3 years now, and there are other sources out there. I'm not sure what exactly what you would like we to show you, as far as sources go. I work closely with their CEO, and they have a few products waiting to be launched, and not just video games. Given how young the page is, I don't believe this company should be deleted especially for the reason of only having "one product". Hipster Whale who has one of the biggest games in the world, only has 3 games, so nomination to delete this page based on it only having one product doesn't seem logical or fair, especially when they have other products in the works, in addition to global notoriety.--Hoopindreams (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point of the deletion a little bit. The number of games isn't really the important part here. Its whether or not it meets the WP:GNG - Wikipedia's rule for whether or not something should be able to have its own article or not. This is basically achieved by locating third party sources (so not from Behdad Sami or their press releases) that cover the subject in significant detail. So, for example, if you could show that, a website like IGN or Wired had written an article centered around them, that would be a good argument not to delete the article. See WP:VG/S for a list of commonly accepted or rejected sources for proving this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the article itself, there's already a source, this one from Vice which would be pretty useful towards showing notability. It's pretty long and centered around the developer. So this is a good example. If you can find more like this, I'd be inclined to !vote keep actually. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. No widespread, in-depth coverage. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, aside from this Vice article which is just as big as Wired or IGN, there is also this article from geek.com, which is a very reputable source. There is also this article from the German tech blog Appgefahren, as well as this article from the number 1 Apple web blog in Indonesia. I think the VICE article is the most globally reputable source, however the other three websites are very reputable and cover Behdad Sami Interactive and their first game. There is also a ton of other 3rd party websites, blogs, and youtubers that have covered this game/company, but as far as reputable sources go that I believe Wiki would be looking for, the four articles I have posted here I believe should allow this page to remain, and not be deleted. Not to mention, they could have a few other articles released soon.--Hoopindreams (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' The Vice article is not "intellectually independent" and is a classic advertorial and relies solely on an interview with Behdad. Classic quote in that article which makes me chuckle is "Being the thorough journalist I am, I immediately got onto Google to check out the man behind the missive." so lots of independent fact checking went on for that article. The second article is also not "intellectually independent" and contains this "In his email to me, Sami said he believes Get ‘Em will “revolutionize not just mobile gaming, but gaming as a whole.”. The last two are blogs which are usually excluded from assessing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator and SW3 5DL, WP:TOOSOON. Most references consists of reviews about the only game they made, little about the company itself. One game isn't enough for notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well seeing what Sergecross73 said, "I think you're missing the point of the deletion a little bit. The number of games isn't really the important part here", your arguement about his "one game" not being enough shouldn't matter too much. Vice is covering his company and game, as well as other tech/app websites/blogs, regardless of it being a review, they are still talking about this company and it's game. I'd say with Vice covering it alone, it gives this tons of credibility, but in addition to that there is geek.com and the other blogs in Europe and Indonesia. That makes this company global in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.39.17 (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding comment is the only edit on wikipedia by this ip. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TOOSOON. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:59, 29 March 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} 15:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I stand very confident in what I said above. The Vice article, geek.com, and both articles in Europe and Indonesia, more than qualify this page from remaining. This game developer is known worldwide and has someone as major and credible as Vice discussing their game/developer. This is in my opinion enough reason to keep them, in addition to the other sources listed above. It's not too soon.Hoopindreams (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Behdad_Sami#Behdad_Sami_Interactive -- not independently notable. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete/Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 16:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The number 1 Apple web blog in Indonesia" is not a viable Wikipedia source. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per K.e.coffman's suggestion above. Lack of independent notability is the key issue here. So long as the company has only one game of note, it makes no sense to have separate articles for the game and the company. The suggested Behdad_Sami#Behdad_Sami_Interactive is the logical redirect target, since it already covers the article subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a Redirect is good for now per K.e.coffman. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per K.e.coffman's suggestion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:48, 13 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) 21:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Davutoğlu[edit]

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

Actor who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Provided sources (entirely in Turkish--evaluation based on machine translation) are entirely lists of credits, iMDB-type listings and passing mentions, with no articles found specifically about him. No idea about notability of claimed awards. Corresponding article on tr.wiki is by the same author with the same material and sourcing. --Finngall ^talk 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor. We need actual indepth mention of people, not just mentions in passing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Author has added several more references since the discussion period began, but they're still passing mentions or do not mention the subject at all. My assessment hasn't changed. --Finngall ^talk 20:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, even if it were his own Twitter account that had 900k followers, it would be irrelevant--the accounts of these others mean even less. The article on the Turkish Wiki means nothing, as different wikis operate independently and can have widely varying standards for inclusion.

Looking at the first several listed references in detail:

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the article in question does not mention the subject.
Does not mention the subject.
Does not mention the subject.
Does not mention the subject.
Does not mention the subject.
Does not mention the subject.
Passing mention.
Does not mention the subject.
Does not mention the subject.
Passing mention.

I haven't looked closely at the most recent batch of additions, but when I looked at the first couple of sets of references, there was nothing but irrelevant links, mentions in cast lists, other passing mentions, and nothing more substantial than a sentence or two about his performance as part of a larger theater review. There are no articles specifically about him, and nowhere is there the depth of coverage about him and his career which is required for the sourcing of a proper encyclopedia article about him. You could include a hundred more references like the ones provided so far, and it still would not add up to satisfy the standard of substantial coverage in reliable sources which we normally ask for. --Finngall ^talk 22:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I smell a lot of sockpuppetry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has far too many sources but there are enough reliable, verifiable and accessible sources defining the subject, especially in French and Turkish. English grammar could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article has grown from when the AfD was proposed to 27,043 bytes, and incease of 15,425. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appears potential socking is going on. With less weight given to potential socks, this needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Dane that sock puppets made comments. I posted welcomes and advice on commenting, and nothing happened there. If they contributed elsewhere, registered IP as users, or otherwise respondend, we could beleve they are real people. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are 68 references listed and when I start randomly looking at them, none meet criteria for significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. Maybe there's something in the ridiculously long list, but I doubt it. Multiple "keep" comments from unsigned sources makes me suspect someone is not acting in good faith.Glendoremus (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With less/no weight given to socks and only two confirmed non-sock participants with contrasting views (other than nom) this definitely needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 16:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Since this article has been listed at AFD, it has been reference-bombed WP:BOMBARD with over 50 new sources. Always a "red-flag". Very doubtful any editor is going to spend 1 - 2 hours to check all of them, (which i will do if there are 20 or less) nor should we have to. I have checked 10 random sources as follows:

"Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality City Theaters Official web site"- subject not mentioned
Jump up^ "Istanbul City Theatres celebrate 100th anniversary"- subject not mentioned
"5th International Cyprus Theater Festival" - subject not mentioned
Turkishdrama.com subject not mentioned and was sourced from Wikipedia and IMBD both of which are not reliable for sourcing per WP:RS/IMDB and WP:USERG
"Intekam Drama On Geo Kahani" - TV type listing- pretty much a press release- not useful for notability, Not "Independent" per WP:GNG and WP:QS)
"Vasfi Rıza Zobu Theater Awards, "Actor of the year -notes subject won best actor award given by a youth foundation to reward a young theater artist who makes a difference with the performance he has shown in the city / municipality / private theater in the past year.
"Theater reviewer, Gülşen Bilge Kaya's article, "Psychologists suggest betrayal! - Review of a Harold Pinter's play"Deception". Trival mention in Turkish "Art" website, arsizsanat.com. Subject is mentioned twice in Turkish article. Strangely, if translated to English by Google it appears that he is mentioned 11 times, the exact same sentence repeated 10 time.
"Koliba Film" - Link returns "Web Sitesi Yapım Aşamasında" (under construction) -useless
"International İstanbul Theater Festival" - Annoucment of performance times of play at Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality City Theaters. Not useful to establish notability. subject not mentioned
"Nov. 2016 87th issue of Yeni Tiyatro Dergisi (New Theater Magazine) has been released! - PR announcement for magazine and list places one can buy it. once again, subject not mentioned

That's all I am willing to check particularly because over half of the "sources" don't even mention the subject. Since the creator has spent a lot of time on this article as well as this AFD I am willing to amend my vote if any of the keep votes can provide 3 sources that meet the requirements of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG -

"Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." CBS527^Talk 20:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be notable. It seems the article is been WP:BOMBARDed with references. A Google Search of the subject (WP:BEFORE) did not find any reliable and independent sources. As per above it seems the sources provided are not reliable or independent so this article should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still no reliable significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, filled with redlinks to non notable stuff. I'm goin to file a SPI because there are accounts and obvious lack of markup grasp shared among them and the IPs. L3X1 (distant write) 14:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed all the sock and IP votes. Normally, I comment without removing votes, but I pitied the poor closing administrator who had to read through reams of garbage. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frock~trwiki. I've also semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 10 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 delete. per CHILDPROTECT —DoRD (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting For Saturday[edit]

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

This school band is yet to even release an album, and appears to fail WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; much too soon. Eagleash (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 16:40, 8 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) 09:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khallballi![edit]

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

Opening the discussion, whether this film (not released past decade) should have their own article or should be merged. Plus, no sources for the film claims its release till date. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 16:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC) SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 16:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Crappy, delayed-release film. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it needs to be a draft until the film is actually released - especially considering the article cites no external sources. Without them, it doesn't meet the GNG. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:32, 17 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) 21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Shields[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person with no strong notability claim and no strong sourcing to support passage of WP:GNG. His "notability" as a musician is that he's a member of a band that competed in but did not win a reality show; his "notability" as a politician is that he's an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. And of the three sources here, one is a primary source, one is a blog and one is a purely WP:ROUTINE piece of local coverage of his candidacy announcement. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because one piece of local media coverage verifies that they exist — to be considered notable as a musician, a person has to actually clear WP:NMUSIC for something, and to be notable as a politician they have to clear WP:NPOL, but nothing shown or sourced here does either of those things. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about NMUSIC criterion #10, since his performance was used in a notable album? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion refers to the person being the primary credited performer of a track on a compilation album or soundtrack, not to being a session musician on another artist's studio album. And even if Shields did meet that criterion, the criterion still wouldn't be passed just for being asserted — it would still have to be reliably sourced to media coverage about the criterion getting passed. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject does not have consistent notable sources or a significant claim for an article. Depending on his upcoming election, Michaels may have a minor case for a recreated article but that is yet to be seen.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:N. Being a candidate for a minor position and other ephemeral mentions is not sufficient. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible TOOSOON, fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above; no evidence that the article subject meets the criteria within WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. If anything, too soon. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:06, 16 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 Delete as WP:G7 per creator's agreement below that article should be deleted. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kadie Elder[edit]

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

Advertorially pitched article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong WP:RS reliable sourcing to carry it. This is sourced entirely to unacceptable sources, namely the band's own self-published Facebook page, the Amazon.com sales pages of their singles and the IMDb profiles of film industry workers involved in the creation of the band's music videos -- there's not even one acceptable reliable source here, let alone the several reliable sources that it would take to pass WP:GNG. And for an actual notability claim all we really have here, once the advertorial bumf is stripped away, is that they exist. As always, existing is not enough in and of itself to get a band a Wikipedia article -- they must have actually achieved something that passes NMUSIC, and they must be reliably sourceable to media coverage about them, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Touché^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Purpleshankar (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ "touché - Wiktionary". en.wiktionary.org. Retrieved 2017-04-09.
^ "Definition of TOUCHÉ". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2017-04-09.
^ "touché Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary". dictionary.cambridge.org. Retrieved 2017-04-09.
^ "touché - definition of touché in English | Oxford Dictionaries". Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved 2017-04-09.
^ "touche". Urban Dictionary. Retrieved 2017-04-09.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Zoukis[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not sourced to sufficient reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. This is based almost entirely on primary sources, mostly content he wrote for various publications, and the only two sources that clear that bar are a namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about a concept and a Q&A interview -- both of which would be acceptable if the rest of the sourcing around them were more solid, but neither of which carry a GNG pass in and of themselves. A writer does not get a Wikipedia article just because directories of his writing on the publications he wrote for show that he exists; he must be the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not the author of it, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe he's just a really humble, modest, self-effacing guy who likes to contribute to society without seizing the spotlight, because he finds it satisfaction enough to know that people benefit from his writings, even if it's without ever learning the story of the man behind the byline? Oh well, nice guys finish last, I guess! N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory of nice guys; it's an encyclopedia, on which notability has to be demonstrated by reliable source coverage about the person. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Article created by an extremely obvious sockpuppet who hasn't owned up to it yet. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The majority of sources are bogus; non notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing two books and some opinion pieces while incarcerated is not sufficient to satisfy WP:N. I cannot see an article on Montaigne Medal so winning it should not be considered as satisfying WP:AUTHOR. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:37, 15 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) 21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peralummoottil family[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The entire article is about the history of Saint Thomas Christians in India. Part of a plethora of family articles on Wikipedia which uses the same strategy of highlighting the actual family history at the end using their family websites. This article also talks about the history of Christianity in Kerala using many reputed sources, but slips in their family website in the end, to put in some details about their purported history as well. Jupitus Smart 14:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - Parts of it seem to be decently referenced and encyclopedia-worthy. However, these are not the parts that have anything to do with the namespace. If we already have have an article on this India Syriac Christian community, then I would suggest merging the relevant material into that article and delete the rest, because I see no indication the family is notable. If we don't, then rename this article to something having to do with the religious community and pare down the references to this one family. Either way, I don't see much need for the redirect from the current namespace.Agricolae (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed mind to Delete - If as Jupitus says the good (general, non-family) parts were taken from existing articles, then there is nothing here worth preserving. I don't see anything about the family themselves that makes them notable. Agricolae (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the fact there are detailed articles on Christianity in Kerala and its various sub branches. The current article in question is however not a community but a family, who happen to be Christians. Merging/Redirecting/Changing the name of the article into one of the sub sects of Christianity in Kerala (probably Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the sub sect of the church followed by the said family, based on my reading) is not required as the article in question has copied and re-worded the encyclopedia worthy parts from the articles on Christianity in Kerala and its various sub sects.Jupitus Smart 05:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The parts of the article that are adequately referenced are about Mar Thomas Christians generally. There is little in this about the family, of which little shows them notable. Unless the article is altered substantially to make it about the family, and shows they are notable, we cannot keep it. TNT is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 9 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. Sandstein 12:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Employer of the Year Competition In Belize[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. All the article does is confirm the winners of this award LibStar (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional / spam. The org issuing the award is not notable itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 9 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. The arguments for deletion because the content is entirely unsourced original research is compelling in the light of WP:V and WP:NOR. There is consensus that the topic is potentially notable, so all are free to write an actual article about it. Sandstein 12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Railway station layout[edit]

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

As a railfan myself I feel a certain reluctance in this, but what we have here is pretty much a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Given the enormous numbers of stations constructed over the years, it is unsurprising that lots of them go beyond the classical terminal or through stations, and so what we get here is a long list of anything that someone or another found "interesting", and again, given the numbers, it's hardly surprising that the various expedients for odd cases got used more than once. But there's no system to it, and what system we see here didn't come from some authority; it's just what people made up on the spot. A (long) list of oddities is not an article on how stations are laid out. Mangoe (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It's instructive to learn that this article was created specifically to fork off a growing list of trivia from railroad station all the way back in 2004. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, as the content here is worthless.

Although if I had a moment, I might then begin it again from scratch. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article we should have, but in a more descriptive rather than list form. Starting again seems like a good idea, especially as there are a number of pages linking to it. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) 20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree with the comments above that a worthwhile article could be developed on railway station layouts, but this just reads like a random list with no logic to it and as such is of very little use. Dunarc (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article does have useful information. It also has a lot of unnecessary examples, and other useless stuff. I would edit out most or all of the examples, and the sections about station naming, longest platforms and largest stations, but keep the rest. I would also try to find some references for what remains. The de.wiki article de:Bahnhof has some references for its equivalents of the parts that I would keep (but those references are in German), and there are further possible references in Station building#References (an article I have been translating from pl.wiki) (but I don't have easy access to those references). If it is regarded as acceptable to use German language references as at least a stopgap, I will modify this article as I have suggested and add some German language references to it. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject, and indeed, some of the above votes in favor of deletion acknowledge that the subject itself is deserving of an article, just think the current article is not a good one. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. To delete instead of improving an article on a notable subject is contrary to the Wikipedia's ethos of steady, collaborative improvement that builds on previous work. It makes no sense to start over from scratch instead of on improving on what has already been written. —Lowellian (reply) 08:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but having said that, I can understand the delete argument completely... It needs work, if someone puts the work in, it is worth keeping. As it stands I understand the argument to delete JarrahTree 10:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT A discussion of the various types of railway stations, platform layouts, etc. is definitely encyclopedic. We have side platform, island platform, Spanish solution, balloon loop, etc. An article by this name should just briefly describe, include a {{main}} tag, and maybe a couple examples for each type. There could also be a section on notable exceptions. But the current list of examples is too massive and too random to be useful. Some of the sections (platform numbering, joint/disjoint stations) are pure WP:SYNTH which should be removed. I could go on. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article requires improvement, not deletion. Remember, folks, AFD is not cleanup. And it's a notable topic, so the quality of the article is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this. Personally, I think that for the most part what needs to be said about layout can be said in a short section in the main article, but even so, if there is to be an article here, I'm for WP:TNT. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this." That's not in Wikipedia rules at all, and it's an absurd argument, as it would mean that no one could ever vote keep on any AFD unless they were expert enough in the subject to improve it to a good article. Again, AFD is not cleanup. —Lowellian (reply) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense: WP:TNT would not exist if this were so, and your argument is exaggerated. If you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion. The only improvement good enough for this article is to erase it and, if someone is up to the task, re-create it. My reasonably-informed opinion is that what is already said about station layouts in the main article is sufficient, and that this trivia list needs to go away entirely and not be merged back into the main article. People who are addressing the content of the article, thus far, have agreed with me, though some of them think a worthwhile article could be written instead. If someone manages to do so, I'm OK with that. But the argument that we have to keep the current crap around while we wait for someone to write a different article in its place is not policy and not a guideline. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're constructing a strawman in changing your argument to "if you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion", since that is not what you were originally claiming at all, which was that one cannot be in favor of keeping the article unless one can personally improve it to a decent one. That is not policy and not a guideline. —Lowellian (reply) 21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "keep the current crap around" is that if someone does rewrite it properly, at some point they will delete that crap. And immediately afterwards, someone will restore it and they give them a {{uw-v1}} template and a {{welcome-idiot}} "welcome", just to rub in the point that pointlessly keeping totally worthless crap is the preservationist approach.

This is crap. It can't bee "fixed". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I keep going back to "sofixit" arguments. When the argument is that what we have is unsalvageable, the counter-argument is to salvage it; mere procedure and appeals to a poorly-named essay section will not cut it. AFD is, in the end, precisely about arguing for "clean-up". Mangoe (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be possible to write something useful about this subject (e.g., the advantages and disadvantages of stub-end terminals, loops, and so on), but the current article is a rag-bag of indiscriminate examples, unrelated trivia ("Naming of stations far from served town" has nothing to do with "layout"), and the eye-poppingly obvious (sometimes stations are on curves!). Since the material in the "Configurations of stations" and "Terminus" sections of the current train station article would make a far better basis for an article on railway station layout than current article content, WP:TNT should be invoked. Choess (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think WP:SOFIXIT or WP:TNT really apply here; anyway, the existence of an essay is no proof of its validity in a deletion argument. My !vote is based on the nom's application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If any article were to attempt to catalogue this information, it would have to take an entirely different approach of summarising rather than randomly listing. In my view, that's deleting without prejudice to readdressing the subject, though you could call it TNT if you were that way inclined. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:32, 16 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, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bbrt Sharma (musical artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Spammy self promo looking page. -- Dane ^talk 10:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could probably CSD:A7. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7: No notability is established and non-complinant to our basic policies. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speedied many times before here and here, failed undelete here. Yeryry (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article presumably created under this variant name because Bbrt Sharma and Bbrt Sharma (Musical Artist) are protected from re-creation. No verifiable claim to notability and nothing found in the Indian media search. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - considering the lack of notability and the frequent attempts at recreation, salting may be required. - Pmedema (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in the slightest. Fails WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. Given the number of times versions of this article have cropped up, it may be worth an admin with a bit of time and a creative streak salting the earth of variants on the article title. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:29, 14 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, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of EconTalk episodes[edit]

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

Episode list for a podcast, all compiled from the primary source. Tagged as not meeting notability criteria for lists since 2013 and not fixed - claims of notability by inheritance only. I think this can safely be left to its own website. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I listen to EconTalk regularly, and think it's a valuable resource. This list seems too much for an encyclopedia. I think the Econtalk wikipedia page needs much more attention to justify this list. One alternative that I'm ok with is to put a list of his more prominent guests each year right on the Econtalk wikipedia page.Sanpitch (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If EconTalk itself is notable, then there shouldn't be a problem with the episode list. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanpitch:'s idea seems sensible, the notable information from the list can be transferred to the main article.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is never inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there's some evidence that the individual episodes have some sort of notability -- as evidenced by reliable sources discussing them individually -- there's no point to such a list. WP is not a directory service. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that meets standalone list notability criteria. Neutrality^talk 02:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user Sanpitch's view. The list is bit too encyclopedic and should stress the more prominent guests each year on this site. --Artene50 (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination--Kostas20142 (talk) 12:50, 15 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A4086 road[edit]

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

Non-notable road per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not just an A road in name, but a main artery in northwest Wales being the primary, and frequently only, connector of multiple towns and villages including Caernarfon, Brynrefail and Llanberis and on the south banks of Llyn Padarn and Llyn Peris. WP:ROADOUTCOMES demonstrates the encyclopedic value of such roads. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2204 road and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A4032 road closed as redirect so I don't believe that is always the outcome. "Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself." is from what you pointed to. You also only mentioned the route. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those were very minor roads - one 200 meters long! The Telegraph calls this road's entire length one of "The World's 10 Best Drives"[1] and the Daily Mail has Richard Wilson going into detail about it.[2] All of this is beyond the route itself and would be out of place in a targeted list article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Clearly a notable road. Smartyllama (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Best known for being one of two roads - this one through the Llanberis Pass - to the foot of the highest mountain in Wales. The other being the more challenging ascents from the A4085 road. At nearly 18 miles (29 km) long, I think it is a stretch to say it is minor. On the other hand, the route is neither primary or trunk, per this image and this list. Fuebaey (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it satisfies WP:ROADOUTCOMES --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:49, 15 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. joe decker ^talk 17:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Macareno[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly related to his unsuccessful candidacies for political office. Kurykh (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These three sources:

[3]
[4]
[5]

certainly constitute in depth coverage. Whether or not they push this article towards WP:NPOL or WP:GNG is another question. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — and three pieces of campaign coverage in the local media is not enough to confer a WP:GNG pass. Every candidate for any political office could always show three pieces of local campaign coverage in the local media, so that falls under WP:ROUTINE and does not constitute evidence that he's more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those three sources do not constitute in-depth coverage. They are trivial and routine coverage of a minor political figure. AusLondonder (talk) 15:32, 8 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 and redirect to List of shopping malls in the Philippines#Zamboanga Peninsula. Sandstein 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Zamboanga City[edit]

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

Content fork from List of shopping malls in the Philippines. Only three list entries have articles and only of one of those appears to be really notable. No sources verifying the remaining entries and summaries. As a general observation, lists of shopping malls specific to cities isn't the norm on Wikipedia Ajf773 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of shopping malls in the Philippines#Zamboanga Peninsula, where the notable entries are already included, per policy at WP:ATD. I don't see that any attempt to achieve this through editing or discussion has even been attempted. @Ajf773: Please don't waste AFD process in the future for such cases. postdlf (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this is a waste of an AfD process. Is there a finite number of AfD's that can be created per day, or something? Ajf773 (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ajf773: I think Postdlf might have meant it would be better to propose a merge on the article pages, for example, rather than taking the issue straight to AFD. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or to just do it. Taking it to AFD means wasting time discussing in this more formal and potentially confrontational setting something that probably wouldn't have been controversial, and someone has to take the time to close it. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 8 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 03:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's no reason for this to constitute a separate article. Per WP:ATD it's quite acceptable though within the main list. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be fine as a section within Zamboanga City, but not as an article on its own. South Nashua (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that's actually a !vote for merging this content there, isn't it? Another proposal to redirect to another article was also mentioned above, which you did not comment upon. postdlf (talk) 17:51, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Orswell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Kurykh (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional campaign brochure of non-notable unelected candidate for office. Fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is an unsuccessful candidate for Congress, failing WP:NPOL. In addition, the subject did not, and does not hold an elected office, nor is the subject of significant news coverage independent of his congressional campaigns. --Enos733 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and the sourcing here — a mix of primary sources and routine campaign coverage no greater than what any candidate for any elected office could always show — is not showing him more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN or per WP:GNG--Kostas20142 (talk) 12:46, 15 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. After a bit of thinking, it seems like we have a consensus to delete. I've opted to ignore a few single-purpose accounts and drive-by IPs in part because they for the most part do not address the notability issues. That leaves Rollingcontributor's keep and HighKing's delete, and HighKing's delete is a bit more on-point at describing why the sources are inappropriate. Thus on balance this is a "delete", but with proper sourcing and a more dispassionate article toneit may be worth recreating later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GVK Biosciences[edit]

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

Unremarable business. Reeks of spam. TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Contains promotional content that needs to be removed. Other than that, seems to have received enough coverage. RoCo^(talk) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is objective. Information related to this organization would be useful for the stakeholders including research career aspirants, scientists engaged in pharmaceutical research, regulators and pharmaceutical companies. — Ravbjain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cleaned some information that was not encyclopedic. Now it seems a good to go. BadhabiJane (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — BadhabiJane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete -- I don't see how (at the moment of this writing) the article is "good to go". Sections include: "Awards and Achievements" & "Company Structure". Typical corporate spam on an unremarkable subsidiary. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have way too many articles that aren't neutral, and we apparently cannot fix them all, the numbers are not decreasing. This article was made for promotion, and contains hidden and obvious neutrality problems, delete.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page contains information about India's second largest CRO. The article can be continued after the recent edit that has cleared awards and recognition section that was not completely neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramkuru (talk • contribs) 09:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Pramkuru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Article is objective and the company is notable. A research company that is on the radar of the EMA, rightly or wrongly, is notable. A potential researcher on Data Tampering could find the page useful. This is not a promotion also, since the company is projected objectively. Ankur Jain
Delete The company fails WP:CORP and GNG. I have looked at the references and not a single one is useful for the purposes of establishing notability. Either that are PR releases (therefore not independent) or interviews/quotes (therefore not independent) or announcements on funding (not acceptable). I suggest that the closing admin takes a good look at the arguments and editors, in particular editors such as Ravbjain (2 edits), BadhabiJane (20 edits, mostly on the article itself *after* this AfD) and Pramkuru (2 edits). Perhaps a closer look is warranted??? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article from The Hindu (regarding selection as one of the top 25 projects including IKEA) , Business Standard (Tarun Khanna, a Harvard professor joining the company), India Today article on the Indian CEOs take on Make in India to support Indian manufacturing sector, LiveMint article regarding the ban of drugs by EMA, Outsourced Pharma's article on how the FDA responded to the drugban and the overall idea of data manipulation by Indian pharmaceutics are covered in the article along with the timeline of tech company. So, my understanding is that the article can be called neutral in the approach. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. I would look forward to improve. BadhabiJane (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keeep the company is a renowned company and it is shown clearly in their content. they have followed Wikipedia criteria for neutrality and it is not promotional in any way.Jamesflare (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep the links are veritable and the content follows Wikipedia policy about company profiles. it deserves a chance on Wikipedia. Imaginemiah (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC
keep the content article is standard, neutral and the links are veriftable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.226.242 (talk)
Comment. I'm starting to get worried about the sudden attention this discussion is getting from IPs and editors who are new or have done little work outside this. RoCo^(talk) 16:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page seems fine to me. Looks as though some of the edits mentioned above have raised its standard and ensured that the tone is neutral and the sources are appropriate. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:41, 17 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wooster School[edit]

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

Non-notable promotional article. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 13:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seem to be quite a few sources supporting the school's notability. Secondary school notability is certainly a hot-button topic, but I think this school is notable. The article certainly needs some work, but I don't think it is a lost cause. bojo | talk 13:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Upon further review and consideration, I think the subject may be non-notable. It's hard to separate a school from its notable alumni and the like. It is certainly tempting to say a school is notable due to its age, but this is a slippery slope. Subjects are not notable just because of their age. I'm changing my vote to a weak delete. bojo | talk 02:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:~~I agree with Bojo.~~ Article definitely needs some work, but there are enough sources to support notability. - Xenxax (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't say I understand User:Xenxax and User:bojo1498's claim:

Source 1 is just statictics.
Source 2 is about a non-notable alum who plays guitar from 1990.
Source 3 is a primary source about above.
Source 5 is a deadlink
Source 6 is a deadlink
Source 7 is about another non-notable musician alum
Source 8 has only a passing reference
Source 9 has only a passing reference
Source 10 is GreatSchools, which documents every school in the nation
Sources 11 and 12 do nothing to establish notability
Source 13 is from the town's historical society
Source 15 is the school's website
Source 16 doesn't establish notability
Sources 17 and 18 are about a new expansion
Sources 19 through 21 are not establishing notability
Source 22 isn't really about the school
Source 23 is a grant to the school (doesn't make the school notable)
Source 24 is a website about a school organization.

The page simply doesn't pass notability guidelines. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 15:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep: This school is over 90 years old and has notable alumni. By the way, source 2 and 3 refer to Tracy Chapman who has won numerous awards for her music, including 4 Grammy Awards; as a result, she certainly qualifies as notable. This article was already nominated for deletion in 2007; the response was 7 Keeps and only 2 Comments against keeping. - Xenxax (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Xenxax, can you unbold one of your keep comments? You're only supposed to "vote" once. Tracy Chapman is of course notable, but notability isn't inherited (by the school). Also, the outcome of a previous AfD doesn't bind a current AfD - especially if it was 10 years ago. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp this isn't really an argument, though. The outcome of a ten-year-old AFD doesn't affect this, this discussion is about the notability of this institution. Article should be deleted per actual arguments above.
  - It's entirely an argument and has nothing to do with the previous AfD. Our consensus has long been that secondary schools are notable. It's a secondary school, ergo it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's an invalid argument, and that supposed consensus, which contradicted the longstanding schools guideline, was officially rejected by the community earlier this year: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Rebb ing 14:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think this discussion has already been had and largely rejected as a (deliberate) misinterpretation by the deletionists of what the discussion you cite was actually about. The result was not to formalise the consensus, not to deny it. The consensus has been come to over countless AfDs; one discussion does not completely destroy it, especially when that was not the issue under discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Per recently-reaffirmed community consensus, schools are held to the same standards as other organizations, see NSCHOOLS, and, per longstanding precedent and consensus, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources—not age, association with notable subjects, or passing media mentions—is the touchstone of notability. Rebb ing 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a a distinguished, highly rated secondary school with a raft of notable alumni and oft-mentioned "self-help" and diversity policies that enable some of those distinguished students to attend.[6][7][8] Multiple coverage in sources like the New York Times [9] and elsewhere [10][11][12][13] This is exactly the kind of school article that the RfC indicated should not start sucking up editor energies at AfD. Passes GNG and emphatically notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the New York Times. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

obvious keep Never mind the precedents: running the GBooks search discloses plenty of references. Yes, the article is terrible, like a lot of these private school articles, but that's a different problem. Mangoe (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage found by Arxiloxos. Altamel (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Arxiloxos and TonyBallioni. I also agree that some of the delete voters are misrepresenting the outcome of the recent RfC. A read of the paragraph on schools under WP:CORP would also be beneficial to those voting delete. I find it hard to imagine a legit school in the US or Britain not meeting that standard, which is the official standard for notability on schools, not the paragraph in the school article guidelines on notability. John from Idegon (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a 90-year-old institution amongst independent schools. As DGG argued in the first AfD, ten years ago, a school can be considered notable in part by the notability of its alumni, since the whole purpose of a school is to educate and send out its graduates into the community and the larger world. FWIW, I have been a teacher at a proprietary college and am a public school teaching fellow. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it understandable that because of the recent confusion about school notability , a school or really borderline importance might be listed at AfD, but this is a major US Independent school with a long history and notable alumni. The only explanation I can find for the nomination os the exceptionally gushy prose, which I am about to tone it down substantially DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 11 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 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giota Lydia[edit]

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

Neither the article's one sentence nor its one reference demonstrate that Giota Lydia is notable by Wikipedia standards. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO due lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 21:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.--Samizambak (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.--Samizambak (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_(The_Very_Best_of_EMI_Years)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgos_Mitsakis
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2516547/?ref_=tt_cl_t11

http://www.stixoi.info/stixoi.php?info=Lyrics&act=index&sort=alpha&singer_id=179 Samizambak (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.greekbooks.gr/music/leka/i-kiria-giota-lidia-1954-1986.product --Samizambak (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.rizes-mikrasiaton.gr/el/29.html Samizambak (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://synergathss.blogspot.com.tr/2016/08/giota-lidia-genimeni-to-1934-stin-nea-ionia.html --Samizambak (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ogdoo.gr/diskografia/diskoi-pou-den-ksexasa/mia-agnosti-ixografisi-me-tin-giota-lydia --Samizambak (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/fc09a2b1-6828-4970-a58a-4a4755baf90f Samizambak (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.mygreek.fm/el/artists/Lidia-Giota Samizambak (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.biblionet.gr/book/114321 Samizambak (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.greeksongs-greekmusic.com/greek-laika-songs-in-greece/ Samizambak (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple albums on Regal and Columbia. WP:MUSIC#5. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs expansion, but there is adequate coverage. I'm also tired of AfDs on stubs with inadequate WP:BEFORE. Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 16 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. Sandstein 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine Trump[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG; only merits a passing mention in her ex-husband Robert Trump's biography, unless he gets deleted too for lack of independent notability from his famous brother… — JFG ^talk 07:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG and I think Robert Trump will end up being deleted too --Bennyaha (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - When somebody is related to somebody else more famous there is a often a rush to delete. Though it is has been mentioned. she is not a brief mention, she is the active vice chair of an important charity God's Love We Deliver, which brings meals to homebound people with serious illnesses. Therein unlike the proposed cuts fo the meals for wheels program by he EX Brother in Law) as well as a fashion icon from her days in the spotlight. The article on Blaine Trump prexists the article on Robert and should not be contingent upon it.Masterknighted (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - Unless more notable events supported by reliable sources allow editors to expand significantly the article. Is probably better mentioned as part of another Trump-related article otherwise. PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my vote to suggest redirecting to the main Trump person or family article. PaleoNeonate (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Subject of dedicated profile stories in People Magazine and the New York Times plus a shorter piece on Curbed. Her divorce was separately covered in New York Magazine. Article is a stub, but stub-status does not preclude notability. DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Blaine it on the nameMasterknighted (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Masterknighted (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~~Masterknighted~~ DarjeelingTea. It feels a bit odd that a presidential brother is less notable than his ex-wife, but she apparently likes the limelight, while he doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Trump family article. Subject only appears in some sources because of her marriage, not for anything she has personally done. This is weaker than Donald Trump. ValarianB (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trump family article, article's subject isn't notable enough to have their own article. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dedicated profile in the New York Times nearly always means notable, saying she only gets them because of her husband is troubling aswell. passes WP:GNG which is all that matters. GuzzyG (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Trump closed as redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this discussion is much more different than the Afd for Robert Trump. Blaine receives more coverage based on her own merits, not her relation to the Trump name.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of her own merits could aptly be mentioned in her charity's page God's Love We Deliver, and the article could possibly redirect there. The puff piece in Women's Wear Daily does not equate mainstream coverage. — JFG ^talk 10:22, 13 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) 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandu Ciorba[edit]

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

No sources Silver Master (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more links where I found informations, it's good now? Luki1223 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources listed are reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These guys are the kind of great obscure culture that should be kept on wikipedia. They have some great songs as well as amusing ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.67.126 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no sources, fails WP:MUSIC, and being part of "obscure culture" is no reason to keep an article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's cited in this scholarly work about Romanian sucultures. Passing mentions ([14][15]) in German books about Romania attest his popularity. Plenty of Google hits. This video has almost 20 million hits on Youtube. This one more than 27 million. Not bad. I suspect Romanian Roma artists have a hard time getting into "reliable" sources. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the subject was really that popular, he'd warrant more than just "passing mentions" in a couple foreign-language books (one of which is in Romanian), nor does the number of YouTube views someone's video has indicate subject notability. It has nothing to do whatsoever with a perceived bias. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:40, 11 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) 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Carriker[edit]

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

Notability GoldenSHK (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG. Non-noteable internet personality. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I edited the article to address WP:GNG and I believe that, except for minor personal details, the majority of the article is relatively well covered now. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I see that a significant part of his notability is his internet videos of him shooting his many guns, and so I've added to the Firearms delsort page, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable internet personality. Sources therein are not suitable for Wikipedia (niche sites, blogs). sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete now we have celebrity doctor veterinarians. OK then. Non-notably internet personality. Clearly promotional and it will not be worth the community's effort to maintain the neutrality of this article (if we could write one with sufficient independent RS with significant discussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 21:09, April 8, 2017 (UTC)
Comment All the sources are of a decent nature and don't promote him in a celebrity sense. They merely state who he is and what he does. I think someone with almost 3 million subscribers is "notable" according to common sense and wikipedia's guidelines. It's reasonably well sourced and, as mentioned above, if a source about his age and date of birth arise in the near future, this article should not be deleted. The sources are separate from him (i.e. he didn't publish them), secondary and reliable. --JC (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at the sources shall we?
  - stinger - some blog. very low quality and we don't use blogs for BLPs per BLPSPS
  - firearms blog. what it says. big shocker that a firearms blogs writes about firearms vlogger. see above.
  - local fox news 1.58 minute video segment from Feb 2016 that will be gone in a year, and was clearly some "human interest" news filler
  - vetranch his website. not independent
  - piece in the battalion the student newspaper of his alma mater. kind of OK but not really independent
  - local CBS news piece from April 2016. human interest filler, but has text that should persist. this is the best so far
  - high plains journal from Nov 2015. This is the best so far.
- so two good sources, one kind of OK source. some blogs and his own website. Marginally N at best. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OBS: The Stinger is a student newspaper as well. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable YouTube personality. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:32, 16 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. Sandstein 12:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baarish (1991 film)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage that would make it pass WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFILM. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:07, 8 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. Michig (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PujaShoppe[edit]

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

Contested A7. Has some coverage, but they read like press releases. As a whole, doesn't meet the coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Also has promotionalism concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. Insignificant reliable coverage of the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; insufficient sources to claim notability, and insufficient to pass WP:NCORP. Shall I bother guessing who contested the A7...? I any case, it almost qualifies under G11. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 07:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--There's a complete lack of WP:RS to claim any notability.Expected our brave tag remover to participate in this discussion but his field of expertise seems to have evaded the field of AfD for good!Winged Blades^Godric 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete lack of notability and very WP:PROMO in nature. -- Dane ^talk 22:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Winged Blades of Godric CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per criterion G11. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:46, 15 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. SOFTDELETE per very low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyda yarim[edit]

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

Neither the article's content nor its references demonstrate that the tune is notable. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.--Samizambak (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.--Samizambak (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Samizambak (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY_0L3h9Lxo Tarkan --Samizambak (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:09, 8 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) 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Catherine Derek[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable writer and utterly non-notable performer. Quis separabit? 01:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has plenty of credits to her name but not notable enough to warrant an individual article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:08, 8 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. joe decker ^talk 17:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Milbank[edit]

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

I find no substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources meeting WP:GNG other than the WalesOnline article listed in the references. Largoplazo (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient sources available to meet WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 22:58, 14 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. I must assume this obviously, almost frivolously useless article is an attempt at trolling by its creator HistoricMN44. Please don't do this again. Sandstein 12:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An Act to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify the Pilot Project offices[edit]

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

This is a non-notable bill. It was proposed on February 13, 2013 and I can find no evidence that the bill was even passed. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Energy Policy Act of 2005 per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In general, I think it is best to discuss amendments to statutes within the primary article for that statute. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to delete per TJRC's analysis below. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I take no position on the bill's notability, but the article says it passed. The lede includes "(H.R. 767; Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 113–69 (text) (PDF))"; the cite to "Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 113–69 (text) (PDF)" means it became Public Law no. 113-69 (i.e., 113th Congress, 69th public law). And the congress.gov page at H.R. 767 says "Latest Action: 12/26/2013 Became Public Law No: 113-69."

That being said, Congress enacts a lot of laws; this is just number 69 in a series of 295 statutes enacted by the 113th Congress. Not all enacted laws are WikiWorthy; the overwhelming majority of them are not. All of them get at least some media coverage, so it's easy to be misled into a sense of notability, just from searching. I have no particular position of whether this particular bill and statute is notable. TJRC (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Okay, I just took a look at the bill, and it's remarkably trivial. All it does is amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to replace the names of the field offices taking part in a pilot with more complete versions of the field office's names: "Rawlins, Wyoming" becomes "Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming"; "Buffalo, Wyoming" becomes "High Plains District Office, Wyoming"; and so forth. It also apparently changed one field office, from Miles City, Montana to the Montana/Dakotas State Office, Montana (which is in Billings, a much larger city), apparently because it was a busier field office. That's it; that's the entire content of the bill and statute. See the text at Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 113–69 (text) (PDF) and compare with the § 365(d) it replaced in Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 109–58 (text) (PDF), if you want to check. It's not even worth rolling up into Energy Policy Act of 2005.

old text:

(1) Rawlins, Wyoming.

(2) Buffalo, Wyoming.

(3) Miles City, Montana.

(4) Farmington, New Mexico.

(5) Carlsbad, New Mexico.

(6) Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

(7) Vernal, Utah.

Replacement text:

(1) Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming.

(2) High Plains District Office, Wyoming.

(3) Montana/Dakotas State Office, Montana.

(4) Farmington Field Office, New Mexico.

(5) Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico.

(6) Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colorado.

(7) Vernal Field Office, Utah.

Delete. TJRC (talk) 23:49, 11 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell[edit]

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

T-Bag is not a notable fictional character. Most of the references are to Wikipedia itself -- articles for individual episodes of the Prison Break series. The remaining external references are not substantial coverage; one is just a picture and caption (no article!). This is just fan-cruft. Mikeblas (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's probably just about enough out there to pass WP:GNG. See [16][17][18][19] Spiderone 19:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Main character throughout the series is enough to clearly meet WP:GNG - Galatz ^Talk 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable character. Passes WP:GNG. - AffeL (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable character. Appears in every episode of Prison Break, and the only character to appear in Breakout Kings.Alligators1974 (talk) 22:38, 14 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 Renee Young. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfiltered with Renee Young[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monday Night War: WWE vs. WCW, this is a web-only, paywalled series that only airs on the WWE Network. It's essentially a chat series featuring pro wrestlers and, sometimes, other celebrities. It lacks substantial coverage outside of primary sources (e.g. WWE). The article as it stands is a list of episodes with an infobox, woefully limited, and like most Network programming it doesn't justify an individual article. KaisaL (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Renee Young, this article was redirected there less than a week ago. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Renee Young, not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Renee Young. I had redirected it there about two weeks ago. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Renee Young, which is where it was redirected not too long ago. Nickag989^talk 21:27, 9 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 Fred Optical Engineering Software. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 17:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Engineering[edit]

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

Can't find any independent reliable sources that would suggest this company is notable. While their software might be, the notability of the organisation is not inherited. Sam Walton (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fred Optical Engineering Software. The refs on the current article are not enough to even approach clearing WP:GNG and I cannot find significant coverage beyond bare mentions in articles about the FRED software.. David in DC (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The company appears to inherit notability by being the author of the FRED software. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 13 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. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynefin[edit]

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

Majority of editors were for deletion or redirect in a newly created article (see talk page). No work has been done since the redirect was opposed by one editor back in January --Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: From your comment, it seems like you meant to nominate Cynefin at articles for deletion. Is that correct? — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - easiest all round I think ----Snowded ^TALK 09:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So...what's the reason for nominating this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created as part of a dispute. It's a dictionary definition with a side order of word salad, e.g. "In Welsh words can reflect the lived experiences of the landscape". SarahSV ^(talk) 05:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hmmm, so @snowded suggested to delete the Cynefin page. Seems to me a clear breach of his Conflict of Interest on Cynefin model. Furthermore I see no majority of editors that was for deletion. It seemed to be just one, maybe two. Something weird is going on here. And NO this was not created as part of a dispute. Where is the proof for that statement? There seems to be an urge to remove something that hasn't got a proper chance to grow due to all pressure from people that want it to vanish. No wonder other editors don't step in ..... Hvgard (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hvgard, your creation of Cynefin was a breach of WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI, and arguably a breach of WP:HARASS because of the continuing focus on Snowded. See the final warning about COI issued in 2015 by Jytdog. Also pinging Huon who commented there. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog? Isn't that the guy that was later and still banned from discussing WP:COI. I don't take that seriously. Sorry.Hvgard (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and SarahSV (who has put a lot of work into the COI and PoV issues) ----Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and (especially)SarahSV's comment above.Llwyld (talk) 15:13, 18 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Seer[edit]

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

Can't find much of any independent reliable sources on this software to demonstrate notability. Sam Walton (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The see references that review this comic book reading app so that is something. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.trishtech.com/2014/04/comic-seer-manage-view-read-comic-books/
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/download/hobbies-home-entertainment/comic-seer-2514-3330422/
http://www.techspot.com/downloads/6468-comic-seer.html

Hmm. The first link seems to be a blog of some kind, they only appear to have one writer at any rate. The second might be ok, I don't know how reliable PC Advisor is. And the third is simply a download link, and doesn't constitute a reliable source of information. Sam Walton (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found this and this, but I'm not convinced the subject is independently notable. I would suggest a merge to Comparison of image viewers, but it looks like that only includes entries that have their own articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 28 March 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} 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 8 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. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Short Metz Grossman[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG. It seems she is best known for her role in music, but does not meet criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. –CaroleHenson (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was mentioned by name during the House Unamerican Activities Committee hearings. Ref added. I see many notable activities in the text, and saw several mentions in Google Books under "Anita MetZ Grossman". meets basic WP:GNG.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly established and WP:GNG clearly met. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per others. Article needs work and cleanup, but notability met. Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was mentioned by name in the Hearings text mentioned above, but her name appears in only two places in that text: the index on page 890, and as part of a question on page 864 towards the bottom of the page. The relevant section on page 864 consists of Mr. Arens asking Mr. Saidenberg, "Do you know a person by the name of Anita Short Metz?", and after conferring with his counsel, Mr. Saidenberg said "No." Clearly the index mention does not establish notability and I think that the question mention, by itself, does not help to establish notability either. Ca2james (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I am totally fine with her being considered "notable", but aside from the mention of the House Unamerican Activities Committee hearings, which seems to be a non-issue, I am not hearing a reason why she is considered notable. What in her career makes her notable?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed that citation, and I have restored it. It's part of her story. The other refs tend to establish notability.198.58.162.200 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment above, " "Do you know a person by the name of Anita Short Metz?", and after conferring with his counsel, Mr. Saidenberg said "No." Clearly the index mention does not establish notability and I think that the question mention, by itself, does not help to establish notability either." - this is not encyclopedic content and does not establish notability. For now, I won't remove the citation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe HUAC mentioned a large number of people, many of whom were not notable. I really don't see anything in her career that had national scope or had a significant impact on the arts. Rogermx (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm stunned by the "keep" votes. What am I missing? All I am seeing are references that are apparently local press mentions over a lifetime, many of them trivial, and a book that she self-published. This appears to be mostly original research by a SPA author. Surprised, too, editors are arguing "keep" based on being mentioned in a HUAC report. Is merely the accusation of being a communist a "notable" achievement? Anyway, I only came here because of the BANDS AND MUSICIANS criteria, which the subject clearly does not meet. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:46, 27 March 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} 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 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) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CIO Digest[edit]

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

I am affiliated with Symantec, who publishes CIO Digest (the subject of the article). The article does not seem fit for an encyclopedia (promotional), especially the last two paragraphs. It is unlikely the publication is notable. It is likely this page was written by someone at the publication, who didn't realize their writing was promotional and inappropriate. Hopefully this AfD nomination will serve to assist in correcting that error. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn corporate publication. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 8 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) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpargatas S.A.[edit]

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

Promotional. Fails notability guidelines. No reliable secondary sources could be found on the web. RoCo^(talk) 15:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unsure as to whether or not it has potential. Rollingcontributor I googled it and they are listed on stock markets etc. The Washington State Journal has also talked about them previously. I am certainly not disagreeing that it does seem promotionally written though and is most likely not acceptable in its current state. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, all coverage available merely confirms existence or otherwise appears to be appears to be WP:ROUTINE dividend declarations, factory openings, trademark registrations, etc. No indication of substantial coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 16 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fractured (band)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet any of the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. No sources or citations. Not even much of an assertion of notability. Vectro (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to indicate notability. No sources found. Mattg82 (talk) 20:08, 8 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) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oleh Teteriatnyk[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:DIRECTOR, as his credits only include music videos and commercials (EDIT: and a short film). Does not otherwise appear to meet WP:GNG, but I may have missed some Ukrainian sources. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iamholic Hello! I've add filmography and more ukrainian references to be clear with your warnings. —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable; fails WP:DIRECTOR, not to mention WP:TOOSOON. No filmography save for an unreleased short film, and article reads like a resume. Needs English sources (of which there are none) for the English language Wiki article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:30, 8 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. Sandstein 12:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant Gentlemen[edit]

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

Every reference, even Fortune, is a slightly disguised press release or a notice.Any number of non-independent references do not show notability. As for Forbes, "Most promising company" means not yet notable. The ones that have actually accomplished their promise are the ones that are notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- being #"#91 on its list of America's Most Promising Companies" strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 8 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. Proposed merge target inexistent. Sandstein 12:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Fatwa under International Law[edit]

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

Found no sources that mention the book itself, so this book fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't read Farsi, but here, here, and here are three news articles about/reviews of the book. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are copies of the same report. One of these sites is Tasnim News Agency. The third link is a copy of this report [20] by the Fars News Agency. Both seem to be too closely affiliated with the Iranian government to count as RSs. Eperoton (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted that last night without having much of a chance to think it over. I agree with you. To go a bit further, freedom of the press in Iran is not great, and there is not too much guidance on understanding RS in such cases. My feeling is that it is up to us to make such a call. That is, government-influenced press in Iran can be used to satisfy V, but probably not to satisfy NPOV, but editors should use their judgement (I think using judgement to handle Irani government-influenced sources is better than out-of-hand dismissal, for what it is worth). In this case, without an independent source in-depth about the book, I agree that this article has issues with WP:ARTSPAM/WP:COATRACK and should be deleted. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest further that if all the independent (of the author) coverage we have for a book are from outlets that can be considered mouthpieces of a government -- any government -- then having an article on it is rather close to channeling government propaganda. So, barring additional coverage, I would also go with delete. Eperoton (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Hi. before of anything I have to tell something about the importance of book from international law. Regardless of the content of the book , which is arbitrary for readers to whether see it as a propaganda or not, I think if we have see the book from political view and its importance then there is no POV.Also we know that according to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article there is no challenge between quality of sources and notability of subject--m,sharaf (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find RSs to demonstrate the book's importance, then we can keep it. I've commented on what I see as insufficiency of the sources presented so far, and I haven't seen evidence that better sources exist. Eperoton (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- poorly written page on a subject that lacks notability and significance. Possibly SYNTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nuclear Fatwa Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: half of the article is a WP:COATRACK about the fatwa itself instead of the book reviewing it; the other half is poorly sourced. To that, add a dash of WP:SYNTH and sprinkle with WP:TNT. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:57, 15 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 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SyMenu[edit]

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

Advertising, non-notable software product. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly constructed page could simply be explained by a new editor, but I had no success finding news coverage. I did find some reviews, and while I think PC Advisor looks legitimate [21], the others don't entirely convince me of their reliability: [22], [23], [24], and [25]. If those sources are more reliable than I realize, I'd of course be happy to change my vote to Keep. Yvarta (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Advertising". SyMenu is not searching for advertising because it's a freeware software, its web site has not advertising at all, it is a software that serves the community. Please read here to understand what the real SyMenu approach is.
"Non-notable software product". We are talking about the USB launcher with the largest freeware program collection in the world (more than 1.200). Isn't it enough to classified the software as relevant in Wikipedia? Moreover SyMenu won a lot of awards from several web site.
"No success finding news coverage". Please note that PortableApps.com, the main SyMenu competitor, doesn't mention a lot of external references outside of self references to its web site (http://portableapps.com). So what's the point? Is it better to remove the real external links and to add new links to the SyMenu own web site to be reliable at the same level? Epikarma (talk) 6:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

References based on reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines) are needed to estabilish notability. That other article has bad sources too, is not good argument for AfD - quite otherwise... Pavlor (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlor is right. So let's speak about the external sources reliability.
Yvarta asserts that PC Advisor looks legitimate and the other web sites are not. Let's try to define this concept through a measurable principle and not through a personal feeling.
Let's see the web sites global ranks thanks to http://www.alexa.com:

PC Advisor 2034 [26]
BetaNews 11771 [27]
cnet.com 154 [28]
softpedia.com 1441 [29]
pcauthority.com.au 80091 [30]

According to Alexa except for PC Authority and BetaNews the other sources are more popular/reliable than PC Advisor. Epikarma (talk) 9:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Epikarma: Popular≠reliable!!!! See WP:RS. Pavlor (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL; article consists almost entirely of feature descriptions. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though advertising of a free product isn't quite as sinister as advertising something with a cash value, I still think this article reads like a combination of an advertisement and an instruction manual. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:53, 17 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. Consensus. The consensus here is in accord with our almost invariable practice: We do not normally keep places identified only as dots on a map, as many of them indicate individual structures or the like, but we do if there is any confirmation that it is a populated place, now or in the past. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muleba, DRC[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable under the WP:GNG. This is because its only "source" is the subject (Muleba, DRC) shown in a mapping program. A WP:BEFORE search only found trivial mentions of the subject. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject cannot be confirmed and there is no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned here in this 1921 book, more numerously in this 1927 agricultural journal. I wonder why there are no more recent book cites? Has it changed names? Anyway, this would seem to meet WP:GEOLAND, which covers "even abandoned places." Keep. And once again, the nominator needs to be clear if he's going to start nominating in this area. Read GEOLAND if you haven't already. Named populated places do not have to meet GNG. Therefore even "trivial" mentions, if from acceptable sources, are sufficient to WP:Verify. We have a different benchmark for legally recognized populated places. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a real population center. As per WP:GEOLAND there is no such thing as a "non-notable" village/town/city. --Oakshade (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure why this was relisted when the only delete !vote hinged on "no coverage in reliable sources", which was quickly shown to be false in subsequent !votes... but sure, I guess I can repeat: Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. Antepenultimate (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its existence on this map Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kasaï-Central. We have no sources that give more than the location, the name, and the province it is in. Only trivial mentions here... not enough for a standalone article. WP:ITEXISTS is not enough, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is a dictionary entry with no good material for expansion.Burning Pillar (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Burning Pillar: I don't think I will vote in this AfD, but I just wanted to point out that as per WP:5P, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is a gazetteer. The distinction is important for geographic locations. --NoGhost (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we don't have basic info like population, or other statistics... Currently, the article only contains location and name. That's not enough material for a standalone article. It is possible that more information exists, especially primary sources, but... most of the small places will likely be a stub for a long time, or forever(WP:PERMASTUB); there is mostly local interest about those.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this content into Kasaï-Central, which currently does not cover constituent villages and towns, would lead to coverage that is out of WP:PROPORTION in that article. It's what's kept me from inserting even a wikilink in the province article to resolve the "orphan" tag currently on display; creating a section, or even a paragraph, to call out this one village would look utterly bizarre. Besides which, maintaining a separate article encourages expansion; if you want to permanently limit the information contained on this subject, a good way to do it would be to hide it away in some other article. Other benefits of a separate article for geographic subjects include easier interfacing with m:WikiMiniAtlas, WikiData, and foreign-language wikis. At the end of the day, WP:PERMASTUB is an essay, WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, and I think I'll stick with the latter. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GEOLAND. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First !vote wrongly states the existence of this place cannot be confirmed. However, sources have been shown to the contrary. Obviously meets WP:GEOLAND. Also, the "fundamental principles" of Wikipedia are set out at WP:PILLARS. One of our fundamental principles is that we are a gazetteer. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 12 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. Michig (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rich "Sully" Sullivan[edit]

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

Cannot find any secondary reliable (non-blog) sources backing up what's in the article. Subject generally appears to fail WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. LK (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google won't show up any RSes which fails our basic policies. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:03, 15 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.

[1] "touché - Wiktionary". en.wiktionary.org. Retrieved 2017-04-09.

[2] "Definition of TOUCHÉ". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2017-04-09.

[3] "touché Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary". dictionary.cambridge.org. Retrieved 2017-04-09.

[4] "touché - definition of touché in English | Oxford Dictionaries". Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved 2017-04-09.

[5] "touche". Urban Dictionary. Retrieved 2017-04-09.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]