Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 August	11 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Running Man missions in 2013[edit]

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

This is basically a list of factoids from a TV show--for which we already have a list of episodes as well. It lacks secondary verification, and there is nothing inherently noteworthy about these missions. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, unencyclopedic minutia. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite! I feel like I haven't seen you in forever--we must be hanging in different circles. I sure don't spend as much time in AfD as I used to... Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

***SMACK!!!*** Carrite (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- excessive intricate detail. Looks like that there are more of these: Lists of Running Man missions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 23:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer's Collection (album)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason was: Fails WP:NALBUM; not an award winner, there is no significant coverage in RSes. In other words it is listed at mere directories. The album does have a review in a major genre publication and a DB entry in a second, but the remainder of the refs are about individual songs in the compilation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was my PROD and I still think deletion is appropriate for the same reason "Fails WP:NALBUM; not an award winner, there is no significant coverage in RSes. In other words it is listed at mere directories." ☆ Bri (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the gentleman in question passes WP:PROF. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher D'Elia[edit]

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

I cannot find any indication that D'Elia meets GNG. There are a few odd quotes attributed to him surrounding the Gulf oil spill, but nothing else. He's a professor and researcher who is simply doing his job. Good for him, not really good for demonstrating notability. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's no indication of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Google Scholar isn't that, and what media coverage D'Elia has received is just short quotes that provide no information about D'Elia himself. Huon (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as by the relevant guideline WP:PROF which says "this is an independent guidelines". The sources are clearly, as stated by there and WP:Primary acceptable for verifying firsthand knowledge exactly how we would in anything of this field. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's no actual account of WP:BEFORE here at all, and especially when GoogleScholar is clearly an independent published website. This therefore is exactly what WP:PROF for establishing "significance in the field of academia and science". How else would GNG be relevant if it's not specifically about the subject, whereas PROF is. For as long as we've accepted education articles, we established primary sources can only be accepted, whereas anything else would not be trustworthy in its information. "He's a professor and researcher who is simply doing his job" is not a Deletion argument and WP:PROF makes clear "satisfying any of these criteria is Notability" and "Elected to a science society" is one of them. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I did not spell out how I searched under multiple versions of "Christopher D'Elia" and "AAAS fellow" and a few other search terms; I didn't realize that I needed to publish my entire search history to prove BEFORE; I was under the impression that simply stating that I only found three news outlets that even printed his name would be sufficient. Primefac (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies requirements on WP:PROF Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google Scholar is independent, but is it a reliable source for biographical information? Is it subject to editorial oversight? Can a Google Scholar entry be considered "significant coverage"? I doubt all of that. However, assuming all of that for the sake of argument, this specific Google Scholar entry confirms no claims to notability and does not distinguish D'Elia from the average professor. WP:PROF has a very low bar of notability, but it also clarifies that meeting that low bar is not enough: "once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources" - they have not, meaning that WP:PROF does not support the existence of this article. Regarding BEFORE, I expect I have spent more time researching notability than went into the creation of the article in the first place. Huon (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Verified through independent" sources is exactly what makes GoogleScholar satisfy WP:V. If we're going to argue whether Google is somehow affiliated to the subject, there's no grounds for that at all. What PROF says is that we need significance in the field, and his citations there show it. How else can that be argued if it's not pertinently relevant? Suggesting it be anything else, is bias and it's exactly what we work to prevent here. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is not significant coverage. It's pulling facts and putting them into a table. It's the educational equivalent of a stats table for a baseball or football player. We use them for verifiability, sure, but not for demonstrating notability. Primefac (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In addition to inflated citation counts, it is not independent either. I sometimes manually add non-peer reviewed fact sheets, etc. to my Google Scholar account. In terms of "true" citation counts, Google Scholar isn't really considered reliable among scientists for assessing impact of a paper or research aside from a really quick and dirty look. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this isn't even really close. Citations counts of 569, 262, 247, 201, and 150 on the first 5 listings on Scholar. Clearly passes WP:NSCHOLAR. And he also held the rank of vice-chancellor at USF-St. Pete, and the additional entries which can be found from a cursory search on Books, clearly show he passes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), point 3, as an elected fellow of AAAS. Carrite (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Carrite, can you please provide an independent source confirming that D'Elia's AAAS fellowship represents a membership in a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society"? They take more than 300 fellows every year; is that "highly selective"? If no independent source confirms that it is; it does not meet the standards of WP:PROF. If I were to write one-line stubs on all the AAAS fellows of 2016, with no sources but the AAAS list of new felloes, would you argue those too should be kept?

Onel5969, can you please provide an independent source confirming that those citation figures make D'Elia a highly-cited scholar? The Tampa Bay Magazine is a reliable secondary source, but it's local celebrity "buzz" (their word, not mine), hardly enough to bestow notability. Huon (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While Google Scholar is not a good source to show that they pass WP:GNG, they are pretty much the standard regarding citability. And how often a scholar is cited is a clear indication of their impact in their field, thereby passing NP:SCHOLAR. My understanding is that this is one of the reasons google scholar is included in the tools box to check on a person's notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, my main concern with the citation numbers is the age of the papers. His most-cited papers were written in the '70s. If you check going back to 2000, his most-cited paper where he's the primary author has about 60 citations, and the vast majority are less than 10. Something written forty years ago is obviously going to be cited more heavily than something written in the last decade or so, but the "since 2012" numbers provided on Google Scholar show a very different picture to the "all-time" stats. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you Primefac - but my understanding is that notability isn't temporary. Just because the New York Hippodrome is no longer extant, doesn't make it not notable. I think the same principle applies here, just because this academic's influence was most prevalent in the 1970s does not lessen his notability, it simply lessens his modern day relevance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the temporal nature of notability, I was referring simply to the passage of time. To make up an arbitrary example - if every paper receives 2 citations per year, a ten-year-old paper will have 20 citations while a forty-year-old paper will have 80. The author of the forty-year-old paper isn't "more notable" or "better cited" than the ten-year author, they've just had their paper around long enough. It is, I imagine, why GScholar includes a "since 2012" metric. Unfortunately, I don't know if there's any fast/easy way to see when a paper has been cited, which could possibly demonstrate notability (if one paper was cited 400 times in a year, that's pretty good, as opposed to 400 times over 10 years). Primefac (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon - I would hope that you would do a better job than writing one-line stubs. In theory, every AAAS fellow having a biographical page would be a good thing, not a bad thing. NOTPAPER. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:PROF. There is no need to pass GNG is there is a pass of WP:PROF. Huon, you are challenging a firmly accepting guideline here, and I can not figure out why. Fellow of AAAS-- not just member -- has always been accepted as a sufficient professional society, and there is no need to prove it at an individual AfD any more than it is necessary to prove that the NYTimes is a RS when the question is the GNG. If you want to challenge this, please raise the question at the talk page for WP:PROF or at the RS Noticeboard. Please see the history of the last 2000 afds on this subject for the last ten years. Every single person who met that guideline has been accepted except where it is a question of someone working in a field people here do not take seriously, such as fields traditionally dominated by females, such as home economics, or or where an otherwise respected scientist gets involved in something questionable like climate change denial. There have been previous discussions on the use of GS citation data--see WP:RSN archives. There are published papers showing it's as reliable for the purpose as Web of Science, the gold standard. (I will admit that an ex-student of mine wrote one of the first such papers, but there have been others. Garfield, who invented citation indexing in science, published the judgement that the level of significance for a major scientist is 100 citations. This individual has papers with 569, 262, 247, 218, 201. The 569 is a methods paper, and these get unusually high citations, he has 9 other papers with over 100. One does not have to find RSs to back statements at AfD , afd is not article content. If you neededed them, wwe'd never settle anything here. That's why we have guidelines, and we interpret those guidelines by what we consistently do. Primefac, GS is not significant overage, but the reliable facts in GS provide the evidence--not that one needs significant coverage at WP:PROF.And notability is permanent. DGG ( talk ) 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as I said above, meeting one of the notability criteria of WP:PROF without an independent source backing up the claim is not enough to meet WP:PROF. So if you are saying that he meets WP:PROF, you're welcome to point out the independent sources that confirm any of those claims. Since you asked about my reasons, PROF in my opinion is an abomination because unlike any other notability guideline I'm aware of, it makes notability independent of coverage in secondary sources and tacks the requirement of independent sources on as an afterthought, which leads to many people (including every single "keep" !vote in this discussion that argues PROF) forgetting about that part and claiming that an article with no reliable secondary sources whatsoever beyond a database free of interpretation can establish that the subject is notable and is appropriate for Wikipedia. Google Scholar's citation count will not allow us to write an encyclopedia article. I have not seen anybody beyond Onel5969 provide an independent source that discusses the subject, and that one is local gossip, basically. So in short, I do not think sufficient secondary sources exist to write a meaningful article about this person, and Wikipedia articles should not just be a summary of primary sources. That's WP:PRIMARY, part of WP:NOR, which is policy and trumps notability guidelines. The article does not meet one of our core content policies, and I have seen no indication that it's salvageable. Huon (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NOR policy cited actually explicitly says: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge therefore that's not a limitation on using them at all, and instead an allowance in relevancy. Also, even if there was a requirement of independent sources, this same section says Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them; so even if we had independence, that still wouldn't resolve anything therefore the argument is moot here. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - another policy gets quotemined. "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." (Emphasis in original.) Every single claim to notability is based on primary, non-independent sources. And yes, there is an explicit requirement of independent sources for claims of notability in WP:PROF which isn't met. Just imagine if I tried to base a company article entirely on primary or non-independent sources; you'd be the first to AfD as spam. Why the double standard? Huon (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As has been shown above, GoogleScholar is not a primary source since it's the employer nor affiliate of the subject himself; if we discredited the usability of any source simply because the website has "Google" in its name, we would never get anything accepted. This perspective would never help the encyclopedia at all and it shouldn't be the case here either. Because there's nothing in that policy that explicitly says anything hosted by Google, whether it's the subject's name on there or not is unacceptable, we can't start drawing such conclusions at all. SwisterTwister talk 16:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything to indicate notability in the article's current content. Just being a university employee, holding the qualifications required for that position, and presumably doing the usual things required for those in that position, is not in itself notable - neither is being a member of a trade organisation or professional society an indication of notability - if membership is a reward or recognition for career achievements, there should be sources citing those achievements. Is the American Association for the Advancement of Science a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" under criteria 3. It has 120,000 members, its "membership is open to anyone" (according to its website) and membership is a requirement for becoming an elected member (of which there are many new ones made each year - over 700 for 2013 for example [1]). This does not appear to fit the "highly selective" requirement. Its whole website stresses the high number of members, the wide range of its interests, the great number of affiliated organisations, etc. For criteria 5 or 6, is Louisiana State University's College of the Coast and Environment a "major institution of higher education and research" or a "major academic institution"? I see no evidence of it being that. Louisiana State University itself is only ranked 135th in US universities. No evidence has been presented that fits any of the other criteria. GoogleScholar isn't an "independent published website"; it is not a "source" at all, it is a search engine to find or analyse sources - and its raw results always require examination, not automatic acceptance. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Passes multiple WP:PROF criteria. I think he does happen to also pass WP:GNG but that should not be necessary; both are notability guidelines at an equal level, applicable to different cases, rather than one taking precedence over the other. Most of the comments here seem to be focusing on the poor state of the article as nominated rather than on the actual notability of the subject; that is a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject passes none of the 9 criteria, and I have not seen convincing arguments from any keep position that he does (a more substantive reasoning than just saying "obviously" is required here). If there are sources that indicate notability, why have none been presented? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly passes #C1 (11 publications with over 100 citations each) and his pass of #C3 (AAAS fellow) is completely unambiguous. He also has a plausible but weak case for #C6 for his leadership of Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation. And your insistance on "sources that indicate notability" indicates that your head is still stuck in the wrong notability criterion, GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both points: raw citation counts are not "completely unambiguous" at all - they are actually very ambiguous regarding the determining of notability, and AAAS elected membership is not notable - their paid-for-membership is open to anyone, regardless of academic field or status, and is essentially a magazine subscription with the possibility of attaining elected status an incentive to continue with the subscription. There are tens of thousands of AAAS elected members - there is nothing "highly selective" about getting that status so it cannot count for the notability criteria. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misread my comment. The "completely unambiguous" was for #C3. And if you don't understand the difference between a fellow and a regular member, as your comment indicates that you clearly don't, you should try reading more about that subject before you contribute your misunderstandings to more academics AfDs. My experience in seeing colleagues elected as AAAS fellows (I am not one myself) and in editing other articles on their fellows here is that their standard for selection is calibrated at pretty much the same level as the fellows of major academic societies (not counting NAS/NAE and the other AAAS, which are quite a bit more selective even than that), typically well above that needed for a full professorship at a good research university, and matching what #C3 describes. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 with high GS cites, even in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I agree with comments above. It meets WP:PROF. I added some additional content and some references for verifiability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I usually think some of the critera in WP:PROF on their own are not stringent enough (i.e., having a bunch of citations is extremely arbitrary for determining notability for generating content), but there's enough of a mixture to just make it past WP:PROF. Just a note that Google Scholar is not reliable for citation counts as the citation counts can sometimes vastly overinflated by included non-peer reviewed sources, sometimes websites, etc. Web of Science and Scopus show a decent publication history though. Nothing that would immediately make me think it would be worthwhile to write an article, but enough that I wouldn't argue against keeping it either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF and per recent article improvements; an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and WP:N: even if one contests whether or not each of the individual claims to passing PROF are correct, there is clearly enough here combined that you get to a PROF pass. As DGG notes, that is independent of the GNG, and regardless, it wouldn't matter if it wasn't in the text of the guideline: WP:N makes it clear that SNGs are equal to the GNG: It [is presumed notable if it] meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. We need to start remembering that the GNG is only one part of the larger notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Sculls[edit]

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

Promotionally toned WP:BLP of a musician, who has potentially valid claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC but is completely failing to reliably source them. Every single reference here is a primary source, such as social media or press releases, with the exception of a single magazine article which glancingly namechecks her existence in the process of being about somebody else. This is not the kind of sourcing required to make her eligible for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire page reads like a press release. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, don't see any reason for a separate article/press release. Skycycle (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not on the value of the article (which is poor and probably paid for) but the lack of notability per WP:NMUSIC as well articulated by Bearcat above. --Ifnord (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Kings[edit]

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

Independent team that has yet to actually play a "fully pro" match, the first of which won't actually be against a pro-league team. Grand total of 6 GNews hits, all either from the Baltimore region (surprise surprise) or brief one-line mentions. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and would simply appear to be TOOSOON for the team. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of notability should be enough for this one. Skycycle (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY, has not played in a national competition. No sign yet of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 23:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LearnSignal[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. Non-noteable business with a lack of significant coverage in independent secondary sources.Digging into the citations, they are suspect at best. The company has only been around for a year, and while it is great they have received silver and gold approval levels as a learning partner, those awards do not immediately qualify the company for its own WP page. Comatmebro (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After searches, not finding enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that this source in the article is essentially pr, and other sources are rather routine in nature. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to draft . (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of JavaScript[edit]

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

WP already has an article JavaScript, this is a guide or manual, and should be deleted as per WP:NOTMANUAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was a good-faith move from draft space by Sushn345wiki (talk · contribs). @Onel5969:, you managed to nominate it before I got a chance to undo the move. I've moved it back into draft space, and assume that The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) never meant for it to be moved into article space per Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines. menaechmi (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my understanding is that once nominated at AfD, the discussion needs to run it's course. Article should not have been moved back into draftspace until said discussion was concluded. It needs to be moved back. If an admin wishes to close this and allow it to be moved back to draft, no worries. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 23:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoat Chand Gurbakhshani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER. Greenbörg (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Shawn in Montreal: Seems no further progress. Greenbörg (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete He has worked on the culturally important topic of mysticism in English poetry but, alas, I cannot find any cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kagitham[edit]

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

I can't find any source on this. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as zero mention to its existance anywhere. If assuming good faith, it may be a spelling mistake but even then I can't imagine what else it could be. Can't find even the faintest mention anywhere. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as apparent hoax. CJK09 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arki Alumni Basketball[edit]

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

Non-notable basketball team ^{Babymissfortune} 05:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd.[edit]

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

Promotional stuff. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

While there currently is a discussion at WT:CSD to make ToU violations a reason for speedy deletion, the current WP:PAID policy does not contain any such language. A ToU violation is thus not a reason for deletion alone, especially if - as was the case here - the article saw significant edits by other editors. Just like with WP:G5, there is no community-wide consensus in favor of deletion when this would also remove significant edits by "innocent" editors (even the discussion at WT:CSD is only about a proposal to delete if no such contributions exist).

As for notability, consensus here is that the sources provided by Northamerica1000 are sufficient to demonstrate notability, especially that they are sufficiently independent from the subject and not, as alleged by the nominator, only reprints of company information.

Regards So Why 12:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestbee[edit]

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

Promotional advertising which has see-sawed between removed and restored advertising in its year-old existence; last AfD showed such analysis as it’s eager to prove it can deliver the goods, The company can also nudge shoppers towards picking time slots, On March 30, the grocer asked its users to “sink your teeth” into the meats supposedly from Explorer Joe Exotic Meats (the website is apparently fake) and place orders until March 31. It said deliveries would be made on April 1; next, as mentioned before, those sources were all from local or trade publishers which cannot be accepted by WP:ORGIND, WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Even then, a new search at News shows nothing but clearly labeled announcements, interviews, press releases or notices: 1-3, 4 is a "company republishment", 6, 8, 9-14, 16, 18, 19, etc. and all which would fit our policy: [Wikipedia articles are not]: Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions". The author was clearly a COI and, worse, when the AfD was visited by a now-banned paid user, both of which have no place of tolerance here. If we examine the current article's contents, it's all general overview, first sentence is what it is, sentence is its funding investors, third is about employees and the last is funding again. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted. It seems to have legitimate online grocery operations in several Asian countries. The article should be expanded and fixed, not deleted. Trialeditor (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some source examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Freelancers for honestbee feeling the sting". The Straits Times.
"Honestbee sweetens Thai operations budget". Bangkok Post.
"Asia-based grocery delivery startup Honestbee adds laundry services to its lineup". CNET.
"Honestbee brings fresh buzz to convenience shopping". South China Morning Post.
"An Asian Grocer's April Fools' Joke About Panda Meat Seriously Backfired". Vice.
"Buy from different stores through honestbee". The Straits Times.
"Grocery Delivery Startup Honestbee Launches In Taiwan". TechCrunch.
"‘Sale’ of panda meat, koala sausages part of endangered animals awareness campaign: honestbee". Today.
"Honestbee's Joel Sng Sets Big Regional Goals for Grocery Delivery Startup". Forbes.
"Food fight: New challengers spice up Singapore’s online grocery war". Tech in Asia.
"Honestbee’s exotic meats sale: an April Fools’ prank gone wrong?". Tech in Asia.

Delete -- the above sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH; the only truly independent sources that I was able to find discuss the company's labor practices (misleading advertising to potential contractors). This does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. Received $15M in funding, which is small for venture-backed tech companies. The article was created by Special:Contributions/Karentho who is currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The article was also extensively edited by an account bearing the company's name; also indef blocked as socks. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Honestbee/Archive. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sources are in fact not independent as shown by the nominator and the Delete votes; there's also the clear WP:Sockpuppetry violations of which are a policy firm in what cannot be accepted; especially, sockpuppets have no luxury of their violations being accepted; this is in fact emphasized in WP:GNG's lead: if it is not excluded under WP:What Wikipedia is not, and sockpuppetry to evade attention or notice, is exactly one of those violations. It wouldn't ever actually matter what the sources are, because it's clear any that are actually existing wouldn't be sufficient. Also, this is different than what we actually see because as WP:ITSNOTABLE says, simply asserting that sources may establish notability is not the same thing as actually showing the article has hope for changes, take WP:GNG's other section which says in bold: Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article so it's clear there's a lot more to actually accepting sources, than simply saying any of them will automatically work. Suggesting that we work to company's own needs to their own financial or material gains, is also a violation of our policy WP:Not a newspaper, because we're not a for-hire publisher and we are simply not a place for such goals at all. As WP:GNG also says, articles must be in acceptable condition before, during or after the community analyses it and nothing has been offered to achieve this. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the statement above, "as the sources are in fact not independent ..., as an example, I doubt the company would issue this article published in The Straits Times as some sort of press release. The article is full of criticism about the company, and it comes across that the reporter contacted the company, not vice versa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company has gotten sustained press, bad and good. Bearian (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than two sources in the list above that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Oddly enough though, the best sources are rather critical of the April Fool's prank and the pay rates but none of this criticism appears in the article... -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to note for the record here that, while the Keeps are not policy-based, but not only was the starting use a clear sockpuppeteer but this also has all the classic textbook markings of undisclosed payment, especially when it resorted to multiple accounts on the company's behalf. This therefore violates our Terms of Use which says: must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation and because any payment would've been between the knowledge of only the hired and hiree, we only judge by the manner of how it looks and there's all the signs here. Our Terms of Use are non-negotiable especially in aspects of covertly helping the company's own promotionalism. Bevwusw the last AfD also never acknowledged the explicit concerns of this, a new nomination therefore was warranted to build upon a better examining and judgement. No one has actually cared to show us how an article can be fixed, as WP:GNG quotes itself: In it is not excluded by WP:What Wikipedia is not, which in this case, it is. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article's talk page is appropriately tagged with the Connected contributor template, and the article does not have a promotional tone that would require cleanup at this time. The article received copy edits from other users that addressed tone issues that were present earlier in the article's history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the record's sake, I'll clarify, as the history shows, the templates were added post-CU-ban thus the editors themselves never formally made a disclosure, therefore they are still in fact violations of Terms of Use. Also, the violation itself of using multiple accounts to evade attention is still in fact a violation of the TOU section "Refrain from Certain Activities". My comment was also a question as to how the ToU could ever be bypassed for the sake of solely keeping the article. In fact, as the templates added by a different user say, "All edits should be reverted on sight" given the ToU violations. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I know it's easy (and honestly tempting) to conflate a user with their content. That is to say, well the user is up to no good so the article isn't either. I try to tease apart the two issues when I can. That being said, I feel there's not quite enough to push this one over the notability edge. The majority of what I saw was a bit of a one off with their whole April Fools thing. Another, was really more about the owner than it was the business, and as was previously mentioned, another reference was more about the worker wages than it was the company itself. I feel if there were perhaps one or two really good sources, this would be a weak keep for me. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Drewmutt says, "It's easy [...] to conflate a user with their content." I can't help but wonder how much that inclination is coloring people's contributions to this discussion. I'll agree that it doesn't help that the article currently doesn't contain any reference to either of the negative issues raised in North America's long list of sources... but I will personally add that information should the article survive AfD. (I'm not adding it while the article is at death's door.) The people who tried to abuse Wikipedia by editing undisclosed and with sockpuppet accounts have been punished; there's no need to also punish ordinary readers who come here looking for information about honestbee by taking that information away. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northamerica1000's sources clearly demonstrate that Honestbee passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Negative coverage like this article from The Straits Times are not promotional sources.
Cunard (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Passes WP:GNG--though mostly in the form of negative covg.Also per NA1000.The TOU violations are shady zones though! Godric on Leave (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of compositions by Morton Feldman. Between deletion and merging, the latter seems to be the better alternative since the current list does not contain the information in this way. Pinging Deskford for that. So Why 19:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Morton Feldman (chronological order)[edit]

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

List of compositions by Morton Feldman already exists. There is no reason to have an article on List of compositions by Morton Feldman AND one on List of compositions by Morton Feldman in chronological order. It is duplicative and as far as I know there is no precedent for it. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with established list. There are in fact precedents – see for example List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin by genre and List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin by opus number or List of compositions by Franz Schubert and List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre. Sometimes there are chronological and by-genre lists presented in a single article – see List of compositions by Maurice Ravel. But in all these duplicated lists there is the problem of maintenance and keeping them in sync. Better to have a single list in a sortable table. --Deskford (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORK and WP:LIST. One too many lists for a barely notable composer. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 23:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedology (disambiguation)[edit]

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore Kloba (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Twinkle error, my deletion rationale did not get added automatically: Since Pedology (soil study) was recently moved to Pedology (see Talk:Pedology#Requested move 3 August 2017), this disambiguation is no longer necessary; its function can be accomplished with hatnotes, etc. already present in the pages.Theodore Kloba (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~We have no deletion rationale but this would appear to be a result of Talk:Pedology#Requested_move_3_August_2017. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

- The nominator has cleared up the matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that Paediatrics is ever known by this term, so only a single hatnote at the soil science is needed. PamD 10:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 23:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Welsh[edit]

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

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article posted the following in a PROD template: "Hello, my name is Adam Welsh. I am the author and person described in this Wikipedia page. I would like this page to be deleted from wikipedia as I need this information to not appear in Google searches for professional reasons. As I am the author and the person the page describes, I see this is as my right and would appreciate your support on this issue. Many thanks." Unfortunately, it is not the subject's right to have the article deleted outright, nor is there a valid deletion rationale in that request.

However, on review, I don't know that the subject actually meets our criteria for inclusion. None of the sources seem to directly discuss this individual. They were in some productions that received awards, or were nominated, but they themselves aren't mentioned (even in passing) in the source discussing the nomination. I'm not able to find anything that shows the subject to be notable. On that basis, I'm nominating the article for deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why cannot the subject of an article request to have an article about him/her deleted?Vorbee (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They can absolutely make that request. But that request alone isn't a valid reason to delete an article that otherwise meets our requirements. It usually is enough to get an admin to take a second look, however, which is what I did when this popped at WP:BADAFD. That said, if an article is borderline to begin with, a polite (verified!) request from the subject could tip the result over to delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not meet notability standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Obukowho[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any source or significant coverage. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 20:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing of a claim of notability here and nothing found to support a claim in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant could be found about the subject to meet GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfroCrowd[edit]

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

Not notable, not typical that WikiProjects, which this initiative is not productive enough to be considered one anyway, have pages. Page is underdeveloped, not ready for mainspace, and does not have any supporting citations that aren't pure publicity. Additionally, metrics and leadership edit count are not significant in comparison to other initiatives, which weakens argument to support Wikipedia article on subject. BrillLyle (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—passes WP:GNG based on a survey of the available sources. As a new article, only created hours ago, we should give this topic a bit of space to develop before immediately bringing the article to this forum. Imzadi 1979 → 17:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If article isn't fully developed, it should not be on Wikipedia. If anything it is a hasty push of the article onto the mainspace before it is ready. Most articles with this little information and notability are speedy deleted. BrillLyle (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article does not need to be fully developed to exist at Wikipedia... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's actually debatable. To have this article so underdeveloped does a disservice to the subject of the article. I have a first-hand understanding of this initiative, similar to Art+Feminism. I actually maintained and created their namespace and collected their press and converted that press into citations. The information is there to create an adequate article but the work has not been done and so this has been pushed to the mainspace too soon. The issue of notability, however, is more problematic. Why should this initiative have an entry when it is debatable whether it is an impactful, effective initiative. It veers on fluffery / puffery if it is not supported by metrics and proven successes that are impactful beyond press. BrillLyle (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Err... I don't see how a few sentences is "fluttery / puffery", and you just suggested "The information is there to create an adequate article". So... case closed? Let's work to expand and not delete this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it is an extremely short article, but it is thoroughly sourced and is therefore a net positive to the encyclopedia. Appears to pass the notability guideline. CJK09 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was added to the article, so I removed and copied the comment here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my dumb newbie mistake. I accidentally clicked on the "edit" button under the article name on this page. CJK09 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Just wanted to note my edit here to avoid confusion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, I will also note my preference to keep the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the potential sources currently included as "Further reading", the initiative appears to satisfy WP:GNG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MShabazz. Sources appear sufficient for the subject to meet WP:GNG. gongshow talk 20:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took a pass at incorporating a few sentences from the reading list. Far from perfect, but every little bit helps. Ckoerner (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libya at the 2017 World Championships in Athletics[edit]

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

Libya appeared not to send any athletes to championships ergo no article needed Scrabble Scribble (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article IF they did intend to send at least one person, or at least one person qualified, and add a note in the nations section. If this is not the case, then just delete it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: non-participant with zero discussion on non-participation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No competitors taking part, so Libya won't compete in London like the article claims? Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence can be provided they intended to send someone, or someone qualified, but for whatever reason nobody went. If that's the case, redirect and add a note. Smartyllama (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 23:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Cameron (musician)[edit]

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

Article, created by User:Tacameron and thus some form of conflict of interest, about a musician with no strong or well-sourced claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. The strongest things here are that he was a guest musician on one song by another band, and that he cowrote one song recorded by another musician on an album that got nominated for a Grammy for the album and not the individual song. Neither of these are notability claims for a musician, per se -- a person has to be the actual Grammy nominee, not just tangentially connected to one, before the presence of the word "Grammy" in the article constitutes a notability freebie, and being a session musician on another band's work is not an NMUSIC criterion at all. And apart from the Grammy database (which verifies that Arun Shenoy's album got a Grammy nomination, but fails to name Cameron's involvement), all of the other references here are purely local media coverage in his hometown media, of the type and volume that nearly any active musician can simply expect to receive from the local media. Neither the substance nor the sourcing here are sufficient to make him notable for the purposes of an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:198E:CE1A:64F1:4DE9 (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 01:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*repeat repeat[edit]

repeat repeat (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD (by article's creator) without explanation of an article that is a recreation of a subject that was deleted by AfD. New refs do not help subject meet WP:GNG and the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON, although if the trajectory of their new release lives up to the recognition it has gotten from Nylon Magazine and Time (although it should be emphatically stressed that Time.com is different from the Magazine for notability purposes) the band may soon merit a wikipedia page. For now the problems remains there is just not enough evident significant third party coverage. What is so far provided is mostly trivial, name-checks, promotional, etc. Give it more time and resubmit the article when sourcing is more solid. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The band meets the qualifications. Legitimate record label, and many sourced national references. I'd like more opinions on this as I fear the person who continually puts this up for deletion has a proxy against the group. Any more insight is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly do the meet any qualifications? Since you're the creator of the most recent version, you have a vested interest the article. I have no feelings about the group at all. I am simply applying the guidelines as I perceive them. Can you tell me how they meet the notability guidelines and I'm wrong in the way I'm interpreting them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - They meet the requirements, again, by being signed to a legitimate record label and having many national press references. I see a lot of groups on here with zero trouble that lack all of those things. I'm not sure why this band is any different and continually has to be put up for deletion, when the cleary meet the guidelines. Thank you for the help with edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being signed to a "legitimate record label" is not a criteria for inclusion. Having released two or more recordings on a major label may be, but only if those recordings garner publicity for the band (see WP:MUSICBIO. And just because the article has multiple "national press references" does not meet WP:GNG. That requires "significant coverage", and brief mentions doesn't cut it, although some editors feel that many many (more than the number here) brief mentions in sources like the ones you provided would help meet GNG. The number would have to be fairly high though. Just because other bands or groups don't meet the criteria doesn't mean that this band's article should be kept. Feel free to nominate those articles for deletion, or alert us to them and editors can review if they meet notability criteria. So, the band does not meet any notability criteria. Since they made it onto my watchlist after the last AfD, any recreation of the article will be seen and if the band still do not meet notability criteria, I will likely nominate the article for deletion. I'm not sure why you think the band is being persecuted. They're not. They just don't currently meet any notability criteria and so they have no place on Wikipedia. We won't stop them from touring, recording or seeking publicity elsewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Sources look legit and they are on a known label and touring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4102:6BF0:ED45:27BE:C64E:FC1E (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability requirements under WP:MUSICBIO. This doesn't mean they are a bad group, somehow illegitimate, or don't make music. It means that, at it currently stands, the band is not notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Ifnord (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON and not enough coverage yet to pass WP:GNG. Wait until their next album gets some media coverage and try again. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Salt. Note: I closed the first AfD (as delete). After that, this was re-created once and speedy deleted, then recreated again and here we are back at AfD with essentially the same discussion as the first time. So, I suggest this be salted to avoid us coming back here again in a few months. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would normally agree with salting with a second nom, but with their pending release and the outside chance it could go somewhere, that may be excessive. It just depends on whether an admin wants to deal with a RfC request instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Jinghe earthquake[edit]

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

Lack of notability Skycycle (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Wykx (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see. According to the article we don't know yet if there are casualties. I found the earthquake notability guidelines and it is notable if there are any directly attributable deaths. A 6.6 earthquake very well could have caused casualties, and very well could have not done so. We just don't know yet, and won't until the casualty report has been released. CJK09 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a little too early to tell just now, but this earthquake only happened like a day and a half ago. We don't have casualty reports yet, but current news indicates collapsed buildings on the order of hundreds, damaged structures on the order of thousands, and displaced people on the order of ten thousand. I don't know if it quite meets WP:NEARTHQUAKE or WP:EVENTCRITERIA at the moment, but I think it will by the end of this AfD. Further, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this earthquake doesn't seem any less notable than, say, the 2017 Lesbos earthquake or the 2017 Botswana earthquake. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that it has already been 2 days - China is quite good with updating information, as can be seen by opening the page for the 2017 Jiuzhaigou earthquake. The Lesbos quake had 1 casualty - though the article needs to be expanded for sure - while the Botswana quake was the 2nd largest ever recorded in the country, and the biggest one in decades, so not sure how we can draw comparisons there at all. Regardless, the article needs to be severely 'upgraded' to make any sense, perhaps with the Chinese sources mentioned above, since they contain a lot more information than we currently have featured. Skycycle (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the earthquake occurred less than one day after the Jiuzhaigou earthquake makes it interesting on its own, but it was almost 3000km distant and every indication is that the two events are unrelated. Fortunately I doubt there will be any deaths attributable to this earthquake. You are quite right that Chinese news agencies are typically pretty quick to promulgate information, and I agree that the article needs to be updated with more information from existing news sources, but contrast my only… like a day and a half with your already… 2 days for our variance of opinion on when this needs to happen. You are right to call me out on my comparisons with the Lesbos and Botswana earthquakes: that was a sloppy argument to make. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an ongoing event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Although we don't have so much information, yet in recent days, it will be expanded. --Yejianfei (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like after that last vote, it has been expanded to include several aftershocks as well. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article are sourced, there was aftershocks, this article totally real, not hoax --Builder8360 (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Chet Singh[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources not apparent. May be a copyvio. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, There no sources or references, it's a hoax,,, --Builder8360 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of seibal[edit]

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

Farmed off from Seibal. Not enough information available to justify a separate article, not even if there really was a siege. Only given one reference, which is a blog. There is nothing here which isn't included in the main article. It is unlikely that there will ever be enough information available to produce a worthwhile description of the siege, almost certainly not enough to justify a separate article. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (perhaps redirect back to Seibal). Looking at that article, it seems to me that the suggestion that the population decline or abandonment was due to a siege is wp:OR, but I do not know. On the other hand, it is a pity that this AFD nom was made when the author had not had a chance to complete it: DONOTBITE. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like an article on this subject could be made (though I would call it "Battle of Seibal" - seeing it wasn't a long siege (presently described 1 day - don't know if that's accurate) - but there is strong evidence this occurred in 735). However the current article is atrocious. No sourcing (sorry - one blog which doesn't contain info on the "siege"). The text itself is mainly about Seibal. The sole content is the infobox - and I'm not certain how accurate it is. The text in the Seibal article actually has some details. In short - this could probably be improved into a standalone article - but at the present state it should go.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page creator edited Seibal to insert a reference to a siege where before there was only a reference to an attack. Big difference.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Kerala[edit]

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

Club fails notability criteria as they haven't played in a national level league or domestic cup competition. Also fail WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Eric Andre Show. So Why 12:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil Award[edit]

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

Potentially merge with the Eric Andre show page. It is something occurring on the show, which is fictional. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on The Eric Andre Show. This article is a very brief article which does not say much, and it could be incorporated into the longer article without too much difficulty. Vorbee (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No demonstration of notability. No in-depth coverage. Edwardx (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss[edit]

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

Self promotional fluff with no indication of independent notability. Dearth of reliable sources does not meet WP:GNG. PRehse (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear promotion. Skycycle (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination Maugster (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear and obvious promotion. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Abbas[edit]

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

Does not meet Notability criteria, and contributor seems to be related and a PR article Shrikanthv (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete beyond being a journalist no notability. Maugster (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commentmaybe websites about him are not english.×Jacob20162016 (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TRIVIAL - FlightTime (open channel) 14:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I removed some of the awkward opening promo. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no doubt in my mind that if the sources presented here were written into the article, then this nomnation would have fallen far earlier. There is certainly no consensus to delete it now. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. F. Ferguson & Co. Pakistan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced article for a non-notable organisation. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. This company thus fails WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company was founded in 1893 and is the oldest existing accounting firm in Pakistan. It is also the Pakistani subsidiary of PricewaterhouseCoopers, a major international firm, as per pwc.com.pk/en/about-us/firm-history.html and pwc.com.pk/en/about-us.html (PricewaterhouseCoopers in Pakistan is represented by A. F. FERGUSON & CO., a member firm of the PwC network... The firm was established in Karachi in 1908. Thus, it is the oldest established firm of professional accountants in Pakistan. Apart from Karachi, the firm has offices at Lahore, Islamabad and Kabul (Afghanistan)...). Furthermore, it has reasonable coverage in news, web and book references. Therefore, I believe it passes WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article says the firm was being sued in 2012 by the Afghan government for auditing irregularities/discrepancies to the tune of $900 million. That is also notable in my view. Mar4d (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anybody else endorse Mar4d's views?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources×Jacob20162016 (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the news and book references linked above, where it has ample coverage in reliable sources. Mar4d (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Mar4d. The Sharif family consulted the firm in the Panama Papers case (see: Pakistan Today). Imran Khan also consulted the firm in a case against him (see: Express Tribune). Bloomberg also mentions it in one of its article. When Philip Morris get in trouble they seek you know who (see: The News). - Mfarazbaig (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mar4d L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tagged A1 -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox (Romania)[edit]

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

Marked with {{hoax}}, as the station doesn't exist; there are no sources whatsoever for its existence or launch (I checked), it's just the author's wishful thinking. — Andreyyshore T C 10:09, 10 Aug 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 10:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. 10:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete: was PRODded as "Unsourced, no evidence of existence, crystal-ball stuff at the moment", but dePRODded by original creator without comment. PamD 17:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being vigilent and adding the tags back. — Andreyyshore T C 04:32, 11 Aug 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blue Whale (game)#Russia. So Why 12:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Konstantinova[edit]

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

Tragic, but not notable as an individual Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Besides, the case is already documented at Blue Whale (game), where it could be considered relevant. — Andreyyshore T C 11:08, 10 Aug 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Blue Whale (game), per Andreyyshore.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolff Landscape Architecture[edit]

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

Despite a number of of references, this appears not to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. It also shows every sign of having been created by an undisclosed paid editor in violation of our Terms of Use. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After removing a bunch of off-topic, unsourced biographical puffery about the founder, there isn't much left. Other than passing mentions about projects worked on, I was not able to find any in-depth coverage. As for awards, none of these appear to be notable awards, most seem to be back-patting by local trade groups. The two citations linked to awards that I bothered to check, don't even mention Wolff Landscape Architecture and there is no evidence presented that they even worked on them. Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the awards section as it was a direct copy (copyvio) of the company's web page. Toddst1 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marion L. Starkey[edit]

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

Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article. Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WprldCat lists over 3,700 library holdings which is enough for the significance criteria cited in WP:Author. Nomination gives no clarification whether they searched offline or in archives, since this subject is from such a time. SwisterTwister talk 13:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keepnotability exists×Jacob20162016 (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, frankly, i am surprised, nay shocked, Northamerica1000, that you would nominate Starkey for deletion (maybe some trouting is in order), if ever an author should be kept based on one work (let alone other books that she wrote) Starkey meets the grade. Her 1949 book The Devil in Massachusetts has received numerous reviews, just take a look at UNZ.org here with reviews by Saturday Review, The American Historical Review, The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, The Forum, The American Mercury and The Nation. Also, Arthur Miller was inspired by The Devil in Massachusetts to write The Crucible (Film Criticism, the Cold War, and the Blacklist: Reading the Hollywood Reds) - "As Miller recalled in his his memoir, "as though it have been ordained, a copy of marion Startkey's The Deveil in Massachusetts fell into my hands."" Esther Forbes reviewed it for the New York Times from Esther Forbes: A Bio-bibliography of the Author of Johnny Tremain, and there are plenty more reviews out there in googleland. Also, as admirably pointed out by SwisterTwister above (Coola, are you trying to receive a barnstar or something?:)), WorldCat (a good indicator of possible notableness) shows a large number of library holdings of her titles including for this one over 1700 holdings and numerous editions, and finally, not sure but, is The Devil in Massachusetts studied at US unis/colleges? while googling for book reviews i came across some sites that offer to provide an essay/paper on it, anyhoo, a more general author book review gsearch also brings up reviews of her other titles ie. The Cherokee Nation reviewed by Pennsylvania History here and Kirkus here. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by RHaworth. Reason: A7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Gonzalez JR[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON as only minor roles in feature films so far, a lack of coverage so does not pass WP:BASIC at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 09:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Adomako[edit]

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

This article has been deleted previously, but the grounds for deletion have not changed. This player still has not played in a game for a senior, professional team in a fully professional competition (FC Sion II is a reserve team, so they don't count, and there's no evidence he's played for the senior team, while VfB Oldenburg play in an amateur division in Germany). – Pee Jay 08:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG with no reliable and noticeable coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 09:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suma Soft[edit]

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

Fails GNG. I did a search for sources and the very best I could find was this which isn't much more than a brief mention. Borderline promotional and is basically just a company trying to write a vanity piece on itself including an unsourcable complete history of the company. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easily fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA article on a company. (There have been multiple speedy deletions for both titles Suma Soft and SumaSoft.) My searches are finding the same as the nominator's and nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unnotable provider of "solutions". . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - has already been deleted three times for lack of notability and promotion. (disclosure: I was one of the deleting admins). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The user is repeatedly recreating it without addressing any of the issues. The person seems to be associated with the enterprise. Jupitus Smart 18:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 09:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Research Group[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. No discernable coverage in reliable sources. Fails GNG and ORG.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also agree with nom, no references, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1, no context. —Kusma (t·c) 16:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AXN (Australia)[edit]

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

Unsourced and no indication of AXN getting an Australia stream. No press releases or coverage otherwise. AXN Asia website does not indicate Australia as market. Some smaller cable providers carry the generic AXN Asia stream, which is identical to the one in Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, etc. No separate AU beam. May include an article once station launched. Otherwise, seems crystal ball. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like one of our regular 'international network' hoaxers; there's nothing about AXN launching in the ANZ region any time soon. Nate • (chatter) 09:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news about AXN Australia's existence; besides, it's not the only hoax that this user has started. — Andreyyshore T C 10:40, 10 Aug 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Society of America[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This organization seems like it would be notable as an historical society, but not finding enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there's significant claims and there's no obvious objections to the easily noticeable sources at Books. On such offline-source matters, a browser will not contain everything actually existing. An article can't be fairly judged without considerations to whether sources may not be immediately available if archived, and our Notability guidelines take note of this, thus no different here. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the links provided in the !vote above in the "Books" link: the first Google results page sources are almost all published by the Dante Society of America. These primary sources do not serve to establish topic notability. Subsequent search pages are providing no significant coverage at all. Not seeing how these WP:GHITS can establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Established by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, the first American translator of the Comedy, in 1881, and has been going ever since. Produces a journal that is published by John Hopkins University Press and indexed and abstracted in selective databases and so probably meets the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) on those grounds alone. (We don't normally separate notable academic journals from their parent organizations). Has a detailed write up from Enciclopedia Dantesca here that is worth reading in translation and makes the significance of the organisation clear. There are also undoubtedly innumerable offline sources for it in scholarly sources since 1881 some of which are listed at the foot of the Treccani article. Perhaps the nominator would like to withdraw now it has been expanded? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above: notable publisher of an academic journal that meets the general guideline of WP:N and is not otherwise excluded by WP:NOT. Here are just two examples of significant coverage in reliable sources the Dante Encyclopedia, The Divine Comedy and the Encyclopedia of Arts and Sciences: Acta of the International Dante Symposium, 13-16 November 1983, Hunter College, New York (Search for the subject name in quotes in both). Neither of these are promotional sources, neither is published by the organization itself, neither is press release churn. This is enough per WP:N read in the light of WP:CORPDEPTH for notability, and it doesn't fail WP:NOT, so it merits inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A fifth relist would be too crazy, so I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanam Re (song)[edit]

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

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-sound-track review(s).Singular coverage lonely in promotional writings.The critical reception section writes reviews of the song from mostly WP:RS sections but WP:NSONGS says ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created...; which is what is happening here.Won a non-notable award.Redirect and/or Merge to film article sought.Ping Cyphoidbomb as someone involved in the case. Winged Blades^Godric 17:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is well sourced has coverage from many reliable and reputed Indian news media , also has won award of the most streamed Hindi song on YouTube in the year 2016.Anoptimistix (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete: WP:RS not met.-Umair Aj (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Artw (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--How can't this be covered at the film article?Winged Blades^Godric 03:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's AfD, not AfM - possibly you should withdraw your noms and make a merge argument through regular channels? Artw (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: um... "merge" is a totally valid !vote at AfD per WP:ATD. Plus, if Winged Blades of Godric changes his mind on things doesn't that show flexibility? DrStrauss talk 16:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I am amused that WGB Afded this article. The song is hugely popular with the Indian media I probably have heard it +i number of times RADICAL SODA^(FORCE) 08:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm equally surprised by such a splendid argument!Hand-wavings don't matter!Winged Blades^Godric 06:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what it has got to do with popularity? We are talking about GNG I believe.-Umair Aj (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While Artw is correct that this AfD should not have started because the nominator sought only to redirect or merge (which is not what AfD is for), once another editor has !voted delete, the AfD cannot be withdrawn or speedy kept per WP:SK#1 anymore. So let's use this already ongoing discussion to debate whether this subject deserves a standalone article or should be covered in the film's article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanam_Re#Soundtrack as the song is not exceptional enough to have its own article. It does not have any independent achievements in filmfare and other awards. There is no point in creating separate articles for each little song.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to pass WP:NSONG. Has some evidence of good coverage ([2][3][4][5]). Additionally, the song won the most streamed song in India award at the Globe Indian Music Awards 2016 ([6][7][8][9]). Played on rotation on national radio channels like Radio Mirchi and chart topper on the recognized Mirchi Top 10/20 chart for multiple weeks,[10][11] Mirchi Annual Chart #8 for the year 2016,[12] Apple Music Annual Chart #2 for the year 2016,[13], made it to the BBC's Official Asian Music Chart for multiple weeks,[14][15][16] and others.[17] Lourdes 16:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As much as I loathe to keep relisting, Lourdes' newly mentioned sources deserve some discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Steen[edit]

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

No sources, doesn't seem likely that his rank meets our notability criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a field officer as claimed. Rank equivalent to second lieutenant. Probably a family history article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, the creator was AxelSteen who has made no other contributions apart from an unsourced link to this article elsewhere, which I reverted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he were notable - would be for WP:CRIMINAL - for murder-suicide of his wife which left a young baby which was then found by others and adopted - or alternatively for treason (against Norway of which he was a citizen). Not notable as a soldier. But at current sourcing level - it is a definite delete - I wasn't able to find anything substantive in a quick search.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffar khattak[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. Saqib (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being "expected" candidates in elections they haven't won yet — our notability standards for politicians require the holding of political office, not mere candidacy for it. But nothing else here demonstrates that he has preexisting notability for any other reason, and the sources are entirely about Siraj Khan's expulsion from the PTI while entirely failing to mention Khattak's name at all. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day 2018 if he wins the seat, but nothing here qualifies him for an article today. Also, WP:COI as the article was created by User:Khattak adamzai. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear on the subject being non-notable for inclusion. Alex Shih ^Talk 13:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Ibold[edit]

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

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

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

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

Musician who appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. The only sources are either not independent or just provide mentions. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda here or knowledge of this musician, but I thought that I'd mention that someone (IP) keeps removing the AfD tag. I've now reverted this twice because I happened to notice it but I can't guard the thing ;) Elinruby (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've requested page protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for one day. If it keeps happening after it expires, hit me up on my talk page and I'll protect it until the AfD closes. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~DeleteNeutral~~ ~~Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Most sources are written by the subject and therefore are not independent. The remaining ones don't even mention the subject.~~ --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Switched to neutral~~, as new sources have been added that could help meet WP:GNG I can't evaluate if it is enough for inclusion so I am not yet ready for a keep !vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some sources that seem to be valid but not enough to clearly establish WP:GNG since there have been no new ones added and especially because of the argument with legal threats included against Cordless Larry. This seems to be a clear case of a conflict of interest from the now blocked author so I also feel it should be deleted. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should point out that a previous revision of the article, which can be seen here, had more sourced listed. They mostly seem to be local coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The only sources cited that mention James Ibold are his record label's website. All the others don't mention him at all or mention him in passing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vote because, James Ibold played with everybody all through this area for years. The Musician has met both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.--Pete-Durkin (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC) — Pete-Durkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I object to the removal of James Ibold's wiki page and reliable source's are cited.--MiInReAs (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC) I cite that this a little more than a mention : Local musician James Ibold met Duskin at Dollar Bills in the 1970s, and has since traveled the world to perform with him. The guitarist says that Duskin... so on and so on. And there are many quotes. It is from a Major City News Paper Sunday article. The writers take pride in their work! Reliable source's are cited... James Ibold was a Legend in Southern Ohio/Indiana/Kentucky in the 80's and very, very high quality. I won't add any more text to the offering until. --MiInReAs (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC) The reference was cited as requested and outlined in the : Proposed deletion of biographies of living people as follows:[reply]

The proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies requires all biographies of living persons to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject. Once the article is tagged in this manner, the tag may not be removed until such a source is provided. If none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect any other deletion process.

Lady's and Gentleman of the Wikipedia editorial site; I have many reliable sources cited that support claims. I have added....

The one included I will cite is from: The Cincinnati Enquirer from Sunday February 6, 2005 Page 52,

"Local musician James Ibold met Duskin at Dollar Bills in the 1970s, and has since traveled the world to perform with him. The guitarist says that Duskin is noted for his strongly melodic song structures and his skilled left-hand runs on the keyboard. Learned from the greats Duskin provides one of the last living connections to Meade Lux Lewis, Pete Johnson, Albert Ammons and the other musicians who forged the boogie woogie style, Ibold says. "Joe is the direct descendent and learned directly from them," he says. "He is definitely the king of the boogie woogie."

Now I have stated Big Joe Duskin introduced James Ibold as his "consummate guitarist for over thirty years" on their final performance together on the Arches Piano Stage at the Cincinnati Blues Festival. Big Joe Duskin's statement about the subject of James Ibold and a newspaper article supporting Claims from a Reliable Source states: since the 70's Ibold has traveled the world to perform with him.

Those are and have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject.

That is the verbatim definition of your Proposed deletion of biographies of living people.

Please acknowledge the references supplied for James Ibold and vote for inclusion.MiInReAs (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single reliable source is all that is required to save a BLP from proposed deletion, MiInReAs, but this is not the proposed deletion process. The standard for keeping an article (specifically the notability standard) subject to an AfD discussion is higher. What we require is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MiInReAs has now been blocked for making legal threats against me. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article does not appear to meet notability criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anmccaff (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete blank on a news search. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about Ibold. Yes, Big Joe Duskin was notable and Ibold sometimes backed him on guitar but Ibold does not gain notability from playing along with Duskin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard him play... notable mention 64.134.174.195 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC) — 64.134.174.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, whether you heard someone play or not isn't how notability is judged on Wikipedia, IP editor. Please see WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NMUSIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my music played on the BBC - doesn't mean I get a Wikipedia article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m so happy you said that Larry, notability is subjective.24.172.216.2 (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC) — 24.172.216.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Neutral~~ It should be Blanked or Restored and obvious the page has been destroyed be the administrator. It should not be like it is! 96.94.229.173 (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — 96.94.229.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We are legally obligated to remove material that infriges copyright, IP editor, as soon as that is verified, without waiting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you say there is a copyright issue... NOT TRUE! 96.94.229.173 (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — 96.94.229.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The line above is a duplicate !vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the difference between poison and venom. Something smells here. Why would Cordless Larry be so venomous to this biographer or the subject? Unless Cordless Larry has intimate experience with ether MiInReAs or James Ibold. You should investigate Cordless Larry to uncover if he has ever authored, published any music business articles or book volumes. That would be advised because that is really a Conflict of Interest. Statelinetrucker101 (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — Statelinetrucker101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Neutral Yes, appoint a special council and investigate if Cordless Larry had ever written any type of music fluff! 75.144.108.90 (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — 75.144.108.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep a good point is "notability is subjective".75.144.108.90 (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — 75.144.108.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The line above is a duplicate !vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, I have one final question for both of you [[User:Cullen328|Cullen Cordless Larry. You both stated the problem with Ibold’s page is not "Conflict of interest" but rather it’s copyright liable. So if those source’s are not reputable or reliable sources as you state, why did you remove them? Why would you fear copyright infringement liable of those pages that you previously removed from your own server, and they were supported by an independent server, that the biographer states they own? Larry you couldn’t wait to butcher Ibold's page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.166.186 (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — 64.134.166.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I haven't mentioned copyright, IP editor. My nomination concerns the subject's notability. I didn't remove sources, just unsourced article content. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Have you ever been a published music writer? 64.134.166.186 (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something's wrong here Cordless Larry 64.134.166.186 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Have you ever had anything published Cordless Larry? 64.134.166.186 (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but nothing about music. I don't see how this is relevant to this deletion discussion, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A word to those wanting to keep the article - you need to bring forth policy-based arguments that principally centre on this: could anyone in the world write a comprehensive and neutral article on the topic? If you don't bring forward something like that, instead of relying on your gut emotion, the closing administrator will probably ignore you and delete the article anyway. See Arguments to avoid at deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete as fails GNG. Also, I suspect that the IP accounts that did the 'keep' !votes above are the same person. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicions are shared (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MiInReAs).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry You don’t know what this has to do with your nomination to delete James Ibold? It is peculiar you monitor Big Joe Duskin’s and tell MiInReAs how to properly credit a periodical that I believe you have ties. You put a notice on the James Ibold page stating there is a "Conflict of Interest" that now you say you didn’t or don’t have a "Conflict of Interest" and you left that notice on the page but remove a lot of the biographers work. Huhh So, I’m not finished but Cullen³²⁸ did not respond to my question. 64.134.166.186 (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) This question is for you. Cordless Larry So, did your boss/supervisor tell you to look into those particular Joe Duskin/James Ibold pages or were you randomly monitoring/patrolling when you came across them? 64.134.166.186 (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that MiInReAs has a conflict of interest, but that is not why I removed material from the article. I explained how to cite a newspaper article to MiInReAs because I have experience citing sources and know that one should put the author's name in the name field in the citation template, and noticed that he/she got that wrong. There are no bosses/supervisors on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant, by the way. The issue is whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and every non-policy focused comment added here likely increases established editors' scepticism about the motives behind the creation and defence of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Then you created all those intricate little questions about press kits and public relations in the booking business but you claim never had experience? 64.134.166.186 (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Cordless Larry you randomly monitor music people pages? 64.134.166.186 (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to establish whether MiInReAs had a conflict of interest. Possession of obscure material on the subject is often a sign of that. I monitor all sorts of pages - see my contributions. If you have a complaint about my behaviour as an editor, please make it at WP:AN/I. A deletion discussion is not the venue for this discussion, and I will not respond to any further questions about my behaviour here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry all your questions were answered. I read it over and over... Again, this form may be the exact place to uncover your grudge against Ibold. Otherwise why does a non-experienced music editor hover over music business subjects. Why don't you hover over stuff you you have experience with? I still have questions! you asked and got answers. Because you don't have a boss or supervisor. Or yet are you a contributor? That would also mean you published music business fluff when you said you didn’t. It’s probably only gonna take is a Tennessee Judge to fix your wagon Cordless Larry. 64.134.166.186 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:* Remember one thing: reputable and or reliable are subjective  64.134.166.186 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 did you even see what was on the page Cordless Larry butchered? 64.134.166.186 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) And this is the exact form to try to put a right where there is a wrong. 64.134.166.186 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, unable to find any sources to indicate notability worthy of a Wikipedia article. Bakilas (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan K. Avery[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Lacking in depth coverage. Run of the mill art dealer. Created by one edit editor. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find one article on Avery, fails WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to find sources but did not find any. We have anything to build an article from. One article, with only a peripheral mention that does not provide the most basic biographical details. Does not meet the GNG, or even WP:V Mduvekot (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No action on Civil War Roundtable ; if you want that deleted, open a new AfD for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Civil War Roundtable[edit]

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

Delete Long-ago declined prod. There is no significant coverage in sources to indicate this organization meets the notability guideline that applies to clubs and groups. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the SIGCOV for this. I do have questions whether they possibly maybe meet WP:AUTHOR. I might be persuaded if the article is improved, but in the current state it is a definite no.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a fair amount of local coverage on the Cleveland Plain Dealer's website, e.g., Cleveland Civil War Roundtable marks 500th meeting (2013). Our article identifies "The Plain Dealer's media market, the Cleveland-Akron DMA (Designated Market Area), [as] one of the Top 20 markets in the United States" which is regional per WP:AUD. The linked article notes some fairly high profile speakers ("Past guest speakers have included authors Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote and Noah Andre Trudeau.") so it is possible there is coverage of these talks in pre-Internet newspaper archives. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- a NN historical society. If it published a journal, I might argue otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete would be my vote. It does publish a journal, The Charger. Here is a link to its archive, going back more than a decade: http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/charger.htm. Submitted by Elendil's Heir.

The question to ask here - is The Charger cited by other publications? If yes, this might grounds for notability.Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked older newspapers on newspapers.com but there is no coverage of the society itself, merely 19 different mentions of people who are members of it. It exists, it has members but I cannot find any other coverage of the organisation itself. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find sources from it, but nothing substantial about it, which makes writing an article somewhat difficult. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - I can't find any significant media coverage. Indeed, Civil War Roundtable should probably be deleted also. That article says that "The oldest such group in the United States is The Civil War Roundtable of Chicago based in Chicago, Illinois, and the second oldest is the Milwaukee Civil War Roundtable.", while the CCWR article says "The Cleveland group is the second-oldest Civil War roundtable in the country, after Chicago's." When factual inconsistencies arise and there's no coverage to settle the dispute, that's a telling sign. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Physics[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 08:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onetius[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article substantially edited by WP:SPA accounts likely to be associated with this enterprise [18]. Google search provides a few advertorial-level items in Croatian online media since the 2014 start-up coverage, but I am not seeing the in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing no signs of notability anywhere. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition has been raised. Written in a promotional tone and is not notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

School Loop[edit]

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

Source searches and custom source searches have not provided a level of coverage to qualify an article. Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable web page or web app. Possible spam, Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LearnAlberta.ca[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Digital repositories, even if they're operated by a provincial government, are not granted an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist — they would need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG, but none is being shown here at all and I can't locate any either. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-the-Knot[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I find it incredible that this award winning website's page is being considered for deletion. It clearly satisfies both criteria of WP:WEBCRIT. To claim that the website's content, which is mathematics, is not notable is very strange indeed. While taken by itself this would not be a qualifying reason to not delete, this website is used as an external link in dozens of WP articles, so there must be many editors who feel that the website's content is valuable. And, while I sometimes find myself at odds over some quality issues, I think that the site as a whole is an exemplar for mathematical education. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

Note: Regarding the above, "to claim that the website's content, which is mathematics, is not notable is very strange indeed", my nomination is based upon this website being non-notable, not mathematics, which is obviously notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Criteria 1 of WP:WEBCRIT, as I read it, talks about the notability of the content of the website. You claim that WEBCRIT is not satisfied, ergo my comment.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcherowi: : Could I convince you to say "This criterion is..." and "These criteria are..."? And thus "Criterion 1 talks about..." etc.? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see really see how cut-the-knot fails WP:WEBCRIT. The website has won several awards and in my perception well known and well regarded in the community (of math education/didactics) in particular for classic geometry. My personal perception aside you can find it referenced/mentioned in various math textbooks (easily verifiable via google books), that is that is textbooks by distinguished mathematician published with well known educational and/or academic publishers.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While the website may be used as a source in various publications, has the website itself received any significant coverage in reliable sources? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets second criterion in WP:WEBCRIT "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the second criterion of WP:WEBCRIT; the listed recognitions are old by now, but WP:NOTTEMPORARY. XOR'easter (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gandalf61. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:WEBCRIT states "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria..." (bold emphasis mine). Still not seeing enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, but withdrawing as this nomination appears unlikely to gain traction. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ágata Lys[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable Spanish actress Quis separabit? 02:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few non-notable parts do not make one notable. Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive directory of all actors who have ever appeared in films, but this was attempted for a time, and we are still dealing with the results of not having monitored article creation closely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the other articles on actors in the film Back to the Door are just one line descriptions with a filmmography attached and very little sourcing. They may have played in enough roles to count as notable, but this whole structure is worth inspecting and reconsidering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moby The Robot[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability whatsoever. Much of the article is poorly written nonsense. Cjhard (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Pablo Guerrero-Cucueco[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I need to bring this to AfD. The subject is absolutely uncovered in reliable sources. None of the claims here can be supported, failing both WP:GNG and WP:RS. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a lot of digging, I finally found some reliable sources and I added them to the article. I've also cleaned up the article a lot. I suspect other sources exist in Tagalog. She was the first woman governor of the province of Aurora. She passes NPOL #1. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As nom, I move to keep. I apologize for this AfD. I swear I did a WP:BEFORE but could not find any sources that did not simply replicate the Wikipedia page. I was beginning to think this was a WP:HOAX but these sources prove otherwise.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: I had a hell of a time finding sources, too. Eventually, just trying different combinations of all of her names yielded some results. It took forever, though. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OmegaWiki[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tagged it for notability few weeks ago and nothing has been done to address the issue. Non-notable site/project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raptivity[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Available sources in various internet searches consist of routine coverage, passing mentions, public relations content and directory listings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked the sources listed in the article and several that looked promising no longer have any content regarding Raptivity at all at the URLs cited 5 years ago. Others consisted of 90% press release, 5% passing mention and 5% irrelevant content. I'll take North America's word on sources not already cited. A shame, "Raptivity" is a cool name. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. I think it is a useful article on elearning authoring. The tool is out in the market for long and so to be fair if the links are not updated, we should ask the community to support on updating it or ask the author of the article to help. But, deleting the post for the links not having latest information would not be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poonamj (talk • contribs) 06:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poonamj is right, deleting because the links not having latest information would be wrong. So I checked, and found that this subject does not pass the General notability Guidelines. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Smartphone Films[edit]

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

List of just two films, on a fairly trivial characteristic of their cinematography. Smartphone cameras are just digital cameras, resulting in films no different than any other film shot on a digital camera -- so it's certainly an interesting thing to mention in the film's article, but it's not a reason to compile a list of them. Especially a list that pretends that smartphone cinematography is unique to India, when it's very much not. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's reasoning as well as the fact that it fails WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 01:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep smartphone cinematography is not only unique to India, even in Europe and many countries also. Out of India, many filmmakers considering, smartphone cinematography is very unique to them. I have just created an article about Smartphone Films and please note the article. There we can see, who were more interested with smartphone movies. In this present time, the page 'List of Smartphone Films' maybe very short. but, in feature surly it will be expanded. So, if Wikipedia can exist the page please keep it here.Undaporiyal (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undaporiyal (talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you haven't shown is sources which demonstrate that "smartphone films" are a thing people are analyzing and thinking about and watching and discussing as a group. We don't care about, or categorize, or list films by, what type of camera was used to make them, because that's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the films. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that I am no more able to argue or discuss about Wikipedia policies, because of my illiteracy. But, I want to mention here that this page List of Smartphone Films only point out about the List of such these specified films. Here no more discussion. about smartphone films.Undaporiyal (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I remember that Tangerine (film) was noteworthy for being filmed on a phone. This talks about that and also mentions Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me It Would Become This Bad in Afghanistan. There are a few lists here. here, here, and here. While this and this aren't lists, if the aforementioned lists suffice, this can be added per WP:LISTN. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Clearly not a notable topic for a list. Ajf773 (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nom, fails WP:GNG. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smartphone Films is a topic made up of an editor here. Movies may be made using various gadgets, this doesn't make de facto "new types of film", unless we start seeing this type appear as a specific type of film in the mainstream media or press. We should not invent such "new types of film" here, nor make lists of the said type. Hoverfish Talk 17:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 09:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey the squirrel[edit]

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

Non-notable animal. Insignificant event. Only claim to significance is media coverage as a seemingly feel-good / filler story by mainstream media outlets. Can come under WP:ONEEVENT to be deleted / redirected to Squirrel attacks or Animal_attacks#Squirrels as event is already listed there. Domesticated animals attacking trespassing humans isn't really all that uncommon (e.g. my cat). Media coverage shouldn't be the only criteria for significance of an event. — IVORK _Discuss 00:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but would your cat attack someone trying to get into your gun safe? Pretty notable heroic sacrifice for a rodent, n'est pa? Also, this very peculiar behavior for a squirrel, very out-of-ordinary, never-before-seen. I believe Wikipedia:Humour police applies in this instance. Bfpage (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial news event. The editor has publicly stated -- on one of her accounts -- that she intends to write more of this sort of dross about squirrels, that kids might like, etc. She seems a congenial editor but I wish there was some way to dissuade her from the notion that this is what Wikipedia is for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my arguments on the article's talk page. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 14:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:TROUT to the author. Power~enwiki (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just delete and move on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Granite School District as per usual practice. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasatch Junior High[edit]

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

Unextraordinary junior high/middle school (for non-U.S. folks not in the know, for students generally aged 11-14). Its academic team won the national championship for junior high schools a few times, the building required reconstruction after a fire 12 years ago, and academic standards are high. That doesn't spell WP:NSCHOOL; all significant media coverage, while in a relatively significant newspaper, is nonetheless typical local news coverage. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Granite School District per usual practice. Would that be an acceptable outcome for you, Julietdeltalima? John from Idegon (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense, and you've refreshed my recollection about what happens to these middle-school articles. (I don't go looking for them, but this one popped up on my radar because of a vandalism spree yesterday.) Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per common practice at AfD. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Granite School District per common practice at AfD for primary and middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that the article meets notability standards. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Die, Mr. Robot![edit]

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

Almost empty article. No references or indication of importance MrMarmite (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the WP:GNG.

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/PS+Vita/Don%27t+Die%2C+Mr+Robot%21/review.asp?c=62287
http://toucharcade.com/2016/03/14/dont-die-mr-robot-from-frutorious-developers-escapes-the-vita-and-hits-mobile-next-week/
http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2017/07/video_why_arent_you_playing_dont_die_mr_robot

It also received coverage for being a PlayStation Plus selected title as well. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Contrary to what the previous user said, it doesn't meet GNG. Push Square is not a recognized source. Pocket Gamer and Touch Arcade are the only 2 reliable/significant sources, and the mention in Playstation Blog is only a few words. Usually the threshold is 3 significant mentions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Push Square isn't classified as reliable or unreliable at the Video Games Source List, but that in itself isn't a reason to discount it outright. There's arguments for reliability. It is the the sister-site of of NintendoLife, which is classified as a reliable source, and was created in 2009 by NintendoLife staff. They've got an established staff, complete with editorial oversight, and the article was written by one of the editors, Sammy Barker, a college educated professional writer. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm not opposed to changing my vote if we can get a consensus on its reliability, as it's a fairly common site._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it scrapes by. RE PushSquare: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. — TPX 20:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article improved to the point of a keep. MrMarmite (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to change my vote to Keep per what I said earlier, it seems Push Square has been proven reliable. I will add it to the WP:VG Source list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub yeah, it's bit blank but that not mean you just delete it, you should nominate it for Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement, it's seem nomineer have a harass --Builder8360 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Della-Ricca[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no coverage in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to draft namespace: I prodded this because there are no sources are cited in the article which show how this person satisfies WP:BIO or WP:ENT. Moreover, a search for such sources only found social media pages and other trivial mentions which do not provide the type of significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to establish Wikipedia notability. This person may indeed someday become notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about her, but at this point it appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. It was de-prodded after being mistakenly moved to the Wikipedia namespace by its creator. I have no objections to this being moved back to the draft namespace as long as the article's creator agrees to submit for review via WP:AFC and not directly added to the article namespace again. I also am wondering if the creator has a WP:COI with respect to the subject matter since the same editor also created Candyse Della-Ricca, which was subsequently moved to the draft namespace by another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Self-Promotion Batman! SNOW Delete. Extremely non-notable vanity article. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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