Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 June	15 June >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Conservation Right

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

This is one of two articles (along with Conservation Property Right) by the user who's main source is Jaime Ubilla. I believe there to be a WP:COI given the editing from WP:SPAs. I think that the articles verge on WP:G11 as they do not have any real secondary sources and both seem to be so heavily essay-based that it would be difficult to turn into an encyclopedic article Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. This appears to be a legit novel feature ("doctrine", I guess) but ultra-obscure and applicable only in civil law. It's hard to establish any context or importance from the content of the page, which was plopped into wikipedia from another document format. There's no assertion of notability. The SPA creator doesn't help the case. BTW I see that this article and Conservation Property Right are virtually identical right now. --Lockley (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. It is a novel concept introduced into Chilean law. It will take some time to see if it garners significant notice and can fulfill WP:GNG at some later time (ten years?). --Bejnar (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Freyd Cover. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scone (category theory)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources that mention this define it directly rather than being secondary sources mentioning other sources defining the term. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Freyd Cover" - there seems to be enough coverage of that to justify an article. Delete this is far too specific for WIkipedia. [1] discusses it, so it's not complete nonsense, but the article as-written is basically nonsensical. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to "Freyd Cover" -- as this seems to be the more standard term for this. The article certainly needs some improvement, but there seems to be enough out there that this could just remain a short article. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename to Freyd Cover, which is currently a redirect to this article. This is a common enough concept in category theory. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil Rights Union

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

the organization in question has no notability it bills itself as an alternative to the ACLU the vast majority of links link back to their own website Jonnymoon96 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonnymoon96, Hi. Just fyi, the question at AfD is not how well the page is sourced, but whether the organization is notable. You might want to also look at WP:BEFORE. Given how the article looked when you found it, I certainly understand what led you to think that it was inadequate. Cheers.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I ran a proquest search, and a lot of press releases came up as they do with the Highbeam search linked above. But scrolling down, at least on Proquest, uncovers many, usually brief, discussions of the group filing amicus briefs in political sensitive cases. I also clicked "books" above and there seemed to be validating sources available. I did a very small amount of sourcing, editing. Certainly the article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - A simple Google news search results in sources only mentioning the subject in passing but a search in books pulls up enough to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Double checked on Proquest and Ebsco. Looks good for RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly needs a lot of work and relies excessively on non-independent sources. However plenty of reliable sources providing significant coverage come up in a Google News search. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work above does indeed appear to be a real and notable thing. Artw (talk)
Keep - While it would be nice to see fewer self-sources and more material sourced to third-party coverage, this seems a pretty clear GNG pass on the weight of the Human Events articles. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is demonstrated by mention in such books as this, this and this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It took me 15 seconds to conduct a search that readily shows that the subject has been extensively covered in reliable sources. - Mr X 18:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's not unanimous, but there appears to solid weight in favor of deletion and the non-delete !votes sound anemic. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Institute of Finance

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

The subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The listed "articles" are mere mentions and many are not independent of the subject. This has been a problematic article for years. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May be a weak keep? Not sure about this one! There does seem to be some references for it, but certainly not from obvious reputable RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references fail the criteria to establish notability (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND) and fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, CORPDEPTH. Most references are either not directly related to this subject or of questionable reliability. South Nashua (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' yeah, there's no sourcing here. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment page updated. Articles updated independent of subject and from reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandrapriya (talk • contribs) — Sandrapriya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Sandrapriya, no they were not. It seems you do not understand the difference between primary and secondary sources--this encyclopedia needs to be built on secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Preceding comment added post the close by Nick. Lourdes 03:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)) The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Master Locksmith

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

This page is not independently notable, and duplicates content on Associated Locksmiths of America, and would have been put forward for speedy deletion under A10 had not this article survived for so long in mainspace. A series of very recently created pages on other qualifications of the Associated Locksmiths of America are currently being speedily deleted under that criterion. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Nick; why don't you simply redirect this to the main article and close this Afd? Lourdes 19:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good suggestion. I have now converted the page (and a few others) to a redirect. I will try to work out how to close my own AfD nomination. I'd appreciate it if you or another admin would then check in a bit whether or not I've followed the closure instructions correctly, or - as is more likely - if I have made a hash of it! (Haven't done this before). Nick Moyes (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SCRAM (software)

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

I originally denied this AFC submission for failing WP:N and not being able to find significant coverage. The creator thanked me for my non-approval and then later accepted their own submission. SL93 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've thanked SL93 for the review, not the non-approval, which I deem dubious. OlzhasRakhimov (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:PRODUCT. Coverage in reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Scram (disambiguation), where several examples of SCRAM in technology are listed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably, I have misjudged and established wrong impression from Wikipedia free software articles to suggest this article. I sense my understanding of notability didn't weigh the fame as much as it seems to matter for an encyclopedia. I felt this useful knowledge would be missing for people. It's unlikely that any independent source/reference would go in depth coverage of this software because it's already done in its documentation, so only its usage for particular cases are expected to be mentioned. Anyway, I am indeed biased and not willing to improve the article as being requested. Hopefully, there will be more articles on Open-PSA, OpenReliability, and probabilistic risk analysis tools/techniques in general in future.OlzhasRakhimov (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. company spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qatestlab

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

Non-notable company. Sources given are either routine listings, company-authored press releases or the company's own website. Article creator has apparent WP:COI. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 19:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magical creatures in Harry Potter

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

This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Fictional universe of Harry Potter. Artw (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources demonstrated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Harry Potter universe is the subject of multiple books and articles (not all of which are written or authorised by Rowling). There's entire volumes like Harry Potter: The Creature Vault: The Creatures and Plants of the Harry Potter Films[2]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many sources, coverage is significant - DrPoglum (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination here and for the related AfD's is an odd combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing that editing the article is somehow too hard. The edit history easily disproves the latter and the former is not a reason for nominating. In the absence of a good nomination, the article should be kept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 19:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magical objects in Harry Potter

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

This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Fictional universe of Harry Potter. Artw (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources demonstrated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination here and for the related AfD's is an odd combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing that editing the article is somehow too hard. The edit history easily disproves the latter and the former is not a reason for nominating. In the absence of a good nomination, the article should be kept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 19:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Harry Potter

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

This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Fictional universe of Harry Potter. Artw (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, might as well get rid of all information on fictional things and lists in general. LordAtlas (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a slippery slope argument? WP:Plot. This is not a site to recap Harry Potter's universe Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 01:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion argument is an "I don't like it" so I don't see the problem. LordAtlas (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination here and for the related AfD's is an odd combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing that editing the article is somehow too hard. The edit history easily disproves the latter and the former is not a reason for nominating. In the absence of a good nomination, the article should be kept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I enjoy how defensive people get about Harry Potter. I guess I shouldn't mess with the Harry Potter Fandom ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with fandom and everything to do with the fact that you didn't state an actionable argument for deletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note dropped on the author's talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation ideologies in Communist China

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

Superficially looks OK, but this is a complete mess, moved to mainspace without going through the AFC process. A little of it might be merged into People's Republic of China, but most of it has little actual bearing on the subject (eg the lead has no relevance to China). There's a lot of anecdotes about individuals, and large unparaphrased quotes from cites, but very little of the article one can say is both well-cited and actually pertinent to the subject of the article - even if that merits an article of its own, especially given the higher quality article at Ideology of the Communist Party of China.

To be clear, I'm arguing both that this does not merit an article of its own and that if it did, the existing text would be of little or no use in constructing it. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i have notified the article creator of this afd, the nom forgot?Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Twinkle had a Moment and it's a while since I've done an AFD by hand. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gently. This has the format of a school essay (argumentative, speculative, quick to generalize) instead of an encyclopedia article (descriptive, factual, specific). As such it seems to want to prove a point. Perhaps not a complete mess but the very framing of the topic is a show-stopper IMO. The editor is indeed a student and deserves an extra dollop of kindness and patience maybe. --Lockley (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like it since I can tell that the author really cares about the conditions of people in China and is trying to do something to help, smartly speaking to the establishment there in their own language. However this is not really a defined topic (WP style), and is not even really an essay. It is more like a personal blog where items, both positive and critical, are posted. That is not what WP is for, however admirable.CalSteven (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I recommend starting a merger discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pangender

This has recieved very little coverage and is not notable. WP:NEOLOGISM applies here also.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I think the article could be expanded, as it stands now a redirect or merge to an appropriate section of Genderqueer might be best. Though note that I have long-standing objections to the title of the Genderqueer article, which I think should be titled Non-binary gender, which makes me reluctant to cast a firm !vote on redirect/merge in this AfD. Funcrunch (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified WikiProject LGBT Studies of this AfD. Funcrunch (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Genderqueer. We currently have a separate Bigender article, but I favor merging all of these (including Trigender, which I've literally never heard anyone use either IRL or online) to genderqueer (or whatever title it might be changed to). Agender already redirects there, per apparent consensus, so precedent seems to show that WP is not currently interested in having separate articles for all the ways in which people might not identify with one gender over another. @Apollo The Logician: would you be okay expanding your AFD to include these other articles? (and @Funcrunch: would that screw with your !vote?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: I would prefer that each of those articles be nominated separately. I particularly objected to the Agender article being merged/redirected a second time after I helped to expand it, but that's a separate topic for discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sounds good. As for expanding the Afd I am fine either way.Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment. The prefix "pan" means "all", as in the word pantheism. Since there are only two sexes, male and female, should not the correct word be bigender? I see that some one has used this term above. This does seem more appropriate English to me. Vorbee (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender is not sex. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And even if it were, sex in humans is not as simple as being either male or female. To take one example, people who have a Y chromosome and androgen insensitivity syndrome may not develop male primary or secondary sex characteristics at all; their external genitalia may be indistinguishable from a chromosomal female. "Y Chromosome = Penis = Male" is a gross simplification of human biology. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment Not necessarily opposed to merger as part of a general reorganization of nonbinary gender articles into one article, but opposed to the grounds stated in the proposal. Worth noting that the AFD from 11 years ago was also on the grounds of non-notability and it was found to be notable then, and AFAIK things generally don't cease to be notable over time. Also worth noting that the user proposing deletion apparently (per comments on article's talk page) conflates sex with gender and thinks there is some kind of "two-gender theory" that the article is biased against, so this smells a bit pointy. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the fact that some people 11 years thought it was notable has nothig to do with whether it is notable or not. Second of all I know the difference between gender and sex. One is biological and one is not. Third of all what on earth does that have to do with anything? Poisoning the well much?Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What it has to do with is the possibility that your proposed deletion may not be in genuine good faith for the reasons you state, but because you disbelieve in the topic the article is about. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that relevant to whether it should be deleted or merged or whatever?Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like Pfhorrest, I question the nominator's motive here. The impetus for the nomination seems to be IDLI with NEO as a justification. The term is not that obscure (Google Books, Google Scholar). The nominator does not appear to have attempted WP:BEFORE. I won't oppose a merge, but there seems to be enough material to have a stand-alone article. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There needs to be a merge going on here because this is forking like crazy. Delete is not the right play. Bi-gender, Queer-gender, and Pan-gender are all shades of the same concept. Carrite (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would say to keep it as a standalone, unless there's a better strategy to determine what would get merged into what. I agree that deletion would be the wrong move. Thought-provoking. Relevant. Meets GNG. ToddLara729 (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evergreenfir. Articles and books from those google searches enough to show a standalone article would pass GNG. Rab V (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Roscelese - GretLomborg (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus to delete all. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts and wars fought with M16 type rifles

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

Indiscriminate list of wars and conflicts in which the firearm is used, firearms are designed for use in such conflicts and wars and this list adds no value to the encylopedia and provides zero information to the reader. Article was created as bait or a decoy article to keep vandals away from the primary articles. (This was to stop the listing of random use of such weapons in both crimes and wars on the main firearm articles). This is not how wikipedia works. Note this has been discussed at project level at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#List of conflicts and wars fought with firearms MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar concerns:

Keep - The M16 and Kalashnikov are landmarks in firearms engineering and military weaponry. Wars are, in my opinion, inherently notable. As long as the items on the list are provable to belong to the list, I have no objection. I express no opinion about the other three weapons because I'm not familiar enough with the topic. However, can we be consistent about the titles? Remove the word "type" from the 4th and 5th items, change the second to "...with Geweher 98 rifles", and possibly change the first item to "...with M16 and derivative rifles". - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although wars are notable the fact that one of 75 million AK-47s or 8 million FN-16 was used in such a war is trivia and hardly of note. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--RAF910 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – a) the lists are not referenced per conflict and I seriously doubt anyone is going to go through each list and every conflict to verify them all; b) the lists are not sorted and due to the loose and illogical format they cannot be navigated with ease, making them unhelpful; c) Wikipedia doesn't need to have "decoy" honeypot articles to deter vanadalism from other pages, we have admins who can opt to apply page protection, pending edits or block editors to stop war editing – better a few protected main pages that a wholly uncited side-list; d) Uncited lists that can be edited by anyone, adding and removing entries, are more likely to be vandalised than articles, making them highly unstable; e) readers now have to navigate through 3 layers (weapon→list→conflict) whereas before they could just go from the weapon infobox to a conflict with ease and not have to search through a poorly organised list of conflicts; f) the scope of the lists are too broad which opens a can of worms to creating pointless lists just about anything, undermining the encyclopedic nature of the project. — Marcus^(talk) 17:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - these type of lists are not notable; the conflict/war and weapon itself are notable for separate articles. These type of lists are never complete and suffer from WP:OR and opinion as to what should and should not be included. Kierzek (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.--RAF910 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unnecessary cross categorisation; this list does not meet WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Verification and original research issues. Ajf773 (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I think that Kalashnikov and M16 are notable weapons, however evrything about their wide usage should be described on pages about the corresponding weapons. Creating such countless lists (that are always incomplete!) does not serve any useful purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Given that all wars involve multiple gun types and all common types of guns such as these are used in large numbers of wars, this is not a useful way of classifying either the guns or the wars. If the articles were created as vandal-bait this was unnecessary: simply ask an admin to apply protection if there's a serious and/or long-lasting problem with vandalism via WP:RFPP. The notion of creating such articles is also flawed in that it simply creates an article which vandals will target but which few good faith editors will be monitoring - this isn't helpful for our readers who will end up being misled by such articles as a result. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - not a notable way of classifying the subject matter, per WP:LISTN. Anotherclown (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, (No redirecting) these are common weapons used in many conflicts since their creation, and lists are little different from "list of conflicts since 19xx". (If a weapon is crucial to a conflict then that should be reflected specifically in the articles.) Use as a decoy is not a Wikipedia process for countering vandalism. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all While the weapon are notable, their very widespread use precludes creation of a list of any real value to the reader. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per Hawkeye7 and others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I don't have a tag, but every time we store info about a item on more than one page we create a potential train wreck. I know; it's an aspect of flat-file databases.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The notion that we're going to start building lists of this kind, and then categories, as a conflict by type, as a kind of ant trap for vandals -- as seems to be the case -- is a new one for me, even after all my years here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aglaée Degros

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

Business promotion article full of puff, purporting to be about professor but really about professors business. Fails WP:NPROF. Low citation count on Google Scholar. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Not notable enough to pass WP:NACADEMIC Coderzombie (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites on GS are 17, 3, 3. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Not enough else for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Article is certainly PROMO in nature, but subject appears to fail notability criteria. Her book shows 150 holdings in WorldCat, but when I looked closer, it is an edited volume, not a standalone monograph authored by Degros. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The puff has now been removed by Dr Eppstein and as such she is head of the Institute at a major university and is now worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The puff may be gone but she still fails WP:PROF. Her publications are not heavily cited enough for criterion C1, and her administrative position (head of an institute, not head of an entire university) is too low for C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shrivardhan Trivedi

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

The subject in question is only known for the program he anchors a crime show called Sansani and all the coverage relates to the show the subject in question does not pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:JOURNALIST in my opinion he fails WP:BIO.I would be glad to withdraw my nomination if someone can find a few secondary reliable sources on the subject and not for the show he anchors, I have tried to find sources but to no avail. FITINDIA 13:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources that could satisfy general notability guideline, all he got is passing mentions and appear to be a case of WP:BLP1E. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG. It is sort of a case of WP:BLP1E, but not entirely. The subject has won a few awards because of the same event, but winning these awards is another feat. I would have voted delete, if the section of "awards" didnt exist in reality. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the light of recent events, taking my vote back. Neutral. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how it passes GNG? There is no independent coverage ("Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.) that addresses the topic directly and in detail in either Gnews or Gbooks. The awards are not notable and not even covered by third party sources also as entry in the Limca Book of Records is not, per se, a sign of notability, because of the book's criteria. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The photograph is what intrigues me. Some of the articles that the author has created has photographs of the subject that were uploaded by him as his own work. Praveen Tiwari has a staged photograph. So does this article. Other articles also had photographs that were deleted earlier - Deletion discussion. All of these indicate a possible case of WP:COI, considering the declaration about his affiliations that the author has made on his page. I would however hold judgement and not vote since the author asked me on my talk page to look into the article when it was PRODed.Jupitus Smart 06:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: One off the topic question, out of normal curiosity, are you from India? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I am @Usernamekiran:. Jupitus Smart 07:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: Exactly what I was thinking and I do strongly believe there is a COI and the author must disclose any conflict of interest he may have. I just notice Yavarai also asked Usernamekiran to look into the article when it was PRODed so his vote should be treated as WP:CANVAS. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: yes, he did ask me when the artcle was ProD'ed. But I first made sure the article was good, and only after that I removed ProD tag (one can see the time-difference). Even if I am summoned by anybody, my participation always remains impartial. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 07:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: That's alright but can you please answer my question that how it passes GNG and how the awards listed in the article are sufficient to support notability? Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 08:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say. I probably won't be around, so I leave it to you all to consider a COI investigation after hearing what Yavarai has to say about this. Jupitus Smart 09:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear senior WP editors, several allegations have been leveled against me.WP:COI is one of them. In this regard I would like to submit that in spite of being new to this forum I am not a trainee journalist who has to satisfy his bosses or needs some extra bucks with WP activity . I am here only because of my new hobby. Professionally I have been a 'Group Input Editor' and 'Channel Head' with reputed media houses at Delhi. With God's grace certainly I don't have financial insecurity. But one thing is very much clear that yes I have acquaintance with lots of people in TV journalism but not with the people about whom I have made articles. I have not made even a single WP articles till date on any person who has notability issue. As a person and as WP contributor this is very insulting and demeaning to face such allegations. Earlier I was of the opinion that WP is really open for all but after seeing this grilling, leveling charges and overlooking the facts and sources cited, I have come to conclusion that WP has become very unwelcoming place for new comers. I apologize if my words hurt anybody. This is much I have to say. Now finally it's up to you whether you keep Shrivardhan Trivedi on WP or vote for it's deletion. This is my last submission regarding article in question. Regards--Yavarai (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Yavarai[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event; maybe later. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sareen Sports Industries. czar 06:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SS Sunridges Ton

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

No evidence of any notability. The article for the manufactuere was only created yesterday and that too is unsourced and almost certainly not notable. No references and fails WP:GNG . An earlier PROD was removed by its author citing other cricket bat names. I will review those articles later. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- Wikipedia already has Sareen Sports Industries (also at AfD). The encyclopedia certainly does not need multiple articles on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge Into SS. SS is clearly notable as I noted in that AfD. I can't find any singular sources for this article on GNews. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new !votes after mine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sareen Sports Industries. Could easily be covered in the article on the parent company, and product is almost certainly less notable than the manufacturer. Merge if the information can be referenced. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sareen Sports Industries. Thank you everybody for the feedback. I agree with the recommendation of L3X1 and others above to redirect this to the article Sareen Sports Industries. Climate7298 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sareen Sports Industries as a plausible search term. Everything can be covered in one article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sareen Sports Industries

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

No evidence of any notability. Unreferenced and fails WP:GNG. Fame by association with players that use these Cricket bats is not notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella, thanks for your comments and feedback on this article and the SS Ton one. I'll try to address your concerns here. I think you mentioned two things about the Sareen article. First, that it is unsourced. I will work on that and try to address it today. Second, that the company itself is "almost certainly not notable." I disagree. To the extent that this argument holds, there are a bunch of other cricket manufacturers that have articles, like Kookaburra, which even has some bat lines that have articles. Even Sareen's main competitor, Sanspareils Greenlands, which also happens to be based in Meerut, India, has a wiki page. I'm not saying that they don't deserve pages, but if they do, then SS definitely does too. More to the point, though, I think it is unfair to say the company is not notable out of hand, even if I didn't include references in my first draft. The company's brand logo has been splayed over television screens around the world for days on end, by some of the most world's most famous players. That's what usernamekiran's comment also suggests. I know you said that that alone doesn't credit it as a notable brand, but then what does? Who are all these other random manufacturers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cricket_equipment_manufacturers), then? Suffice it to say that I'm not financially attached or otherwise biased in favor of Sareen, except in one way, which is that I like many other fans grew to love it after watching some of the most memorable moments in cricketing history. Please let me know, what you think -- and thank you again.

I've made some edits. If this doesn't pass the bar I'll let it go, but personally I think this page deserves to be up nased on its notability. If not, then I think that to remain consistent, the majority of the other cricket manufacturers' pages, as well as their product lines' pages, should also be brought down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Climate7298 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The SS is definitely a very well known brand, one of the most prominent. Not sure how it fits the WP:GNG though. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definetly passes the GNG. I went found specific articles to go along with the numerous mentions 1, 2, 3. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More: 4, 5 as mentioned above, they are very popular/famous and consistently rated number 1. Now some press releases, passing mention. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no new !votes in light of my evidence.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in several sources, albeit not especially detailed, plus multiple sources praising its quality, makes it notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks, all, for the feedback on this. I think that the issue around references has been addressed by L3X1 and others, and this article should stay up. I do agree that the page about the SS Ton should be merged to this one. Climate7298 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GameMaker Studio. czar 06:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GameMaker: Studio 2

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

GNG, not very notable outside of the direct gaming world. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gamasutra release announcement, GamesIndustry release interview, Gamasutra announcement, GamesIndustry education announcement, mention in GamesRadar. GameMaker: Studio 2 alone doesn't appear to be notable. However, I think the information can be merged to GameMaker: Studio, which between the two (given the returns in the VGRS search engine) should definitely be notable enough (if that was not immediately obvious). Merge. --Izno (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GameMaker Studio. Not enough information to warrant a separate article. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 15:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all of the above. Artw (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GameMaker Studio. A clear merge target and this article has limited content and notability issues.Dialectric (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derick Martin

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a final time to hopefully generate any discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NHOCKEY: hasn't played in a top level league (which I assume would mean the NHL) or received high level honours in a second-level league (AHL). He has got a little press[3][4] in his home town of Timmins (pop. 41,788) but nothing to meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my searches seem to agree with the above, only finding local routine coverage and nothing more of significance for GNG. Falls short of NHOCKEY in all regards. Yosemiter (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cradle of Thorns#Download This.21 .281996.E2.80.931998.29. czar 06:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Download This!

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

Unexplained contested PROD. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cradle of Thorns. I can't find anything to suggest this meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. I generally favor redirecting to bands' articles in these scenarios (redirects are cheap), but I wouldn't be strongly opposed to deletion, either. gongshow talk 02:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni sacheli

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

Does not appear to be a notable professor or businessman. A search failed to find any significant coverage about him or his companies. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We neither have evidence of WP:PROF nor WP:GNG notability, and we have zero independent sourcing. Given the puffery often associated with search engine optimization people, relying only on primary sources is particularly concerning. I note, for instance, that our article calls him a "professor" at FUS, but that fails verification: his profile there, conveniently not linked from our article, merely calls him a consultant. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Film Award records

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

The content lacks reliable sources plus there's constant vandalism about highest acting (with again no sources). Looks like WP:OR to me. - Vivvt (Talk) 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial originally researched statistics. Not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia/cruft and per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Although there are more pro-keep !votes I'm not overly impressed with the depth of argument and the lack of emphasis on policy and guidelines. A lot seems to be WP:OR. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Bahá'ís

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

This page does not pass Wikipedia:Notability. It is just a website with no third party sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Free bahais, which also has an AFD. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Bahá'ís were a notable movement in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, being one of the denominations in that religion. This article may need some work, but summarily deleting it is not appropriate given that multiple sources are provided as reference in the articles about the movement's founders, Ruth White (Bahá'í author) and Hermann Zimmer. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Baha'i Faith has no major denominations other than the one widely recognized. Splinter groups have never had more than 150 people each and have failed to be sustained. This user is referring to a few dissidents, not a denomination. Ruth White and Herman Zimmer didn't know each other personally and are not founders of a movement. They each wrote a book with similar arguments over 40 years apart in different languages. The term "free Baha'is" was coined recently by dissidents wanting to appropriate them and add legitimacy to themselves, with some irony. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the time of Ruth White, there have been Free Baha'i groups that have been active, particularly in Germany. This is not a recent coinage of a term. The denial of the existence of Baha'i denominations stems from a religious precept in the Baha'I Faith and not from a sociological reality. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this article has no third party sources and several are clearly non-reliable. Agreed any splinter groups that formed were very small and never formed a sustained community and often fought with themselves and that the term has no real definition. Smkolins (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with A35821361. There has been a protracted effort on the part of some Baha'i elites to deny the existence of Baha'i denominations. The rationale behind this stance derives from some theological forecasts within Baha'i religios texts. Howeer, Wikipedia as a neutral observer should not parrot whatever baha;i religious texts say and rather deal with demographic realities. Since reliable sources see, to indicate that reality is different from these Baha'i forecasts, our articles should reflect that. 79.67.73.104 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but without extensive coverage by reliable third party sources, the standards for notability are not met. There are no reliable third party sources because the term "free Baha'is" is used by just a handful of people trying to amplify their image, or by opponents of the Baha'i Faith who try to amplify any and all perceived dissent. If there is anything remotely close to a denomination with sustained membership, then there wouldn't be a complete absence of sources on them. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regards, A35821361 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I'm clear, Delete, no third party sources. Smkolins (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by Moojan Momen, Adib Taherzadeh, and Rúhíyyih Khanum are all third party sources. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certain editors repeatedly delete large parts of this article, particularly parts of it that reference third party sources, and have ironically nominated the article for deletion because it lacks third party sources. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources used that I think have no standing as reliable sources. A google scholar search shows no relevant hits for "Free Baha'is", a more general search fines Zimmer's self-published text. There are some specialized materials that mention Zimmer or White but mostly in a context of a review of all such groups and how they are contradictory, marginal, and unself-sustaining. This doesn't meet notability requirements. This is one such attempt as have been made by a tiny minority - for a similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Bahaism. There are already two articles about a tiny fraction of the Baha'i population. I see no substantiated reason this article should exist. A group of about two people might fit in one line in the general article on historical divisions. Smkolins (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accusation that I was deleting sourced content, the "sources" were about Ruth White and Herman Zimmer, not the subject of the article, and those sources are not sources for the article being proposed. This Wikipedia article is based on a single website of dubious reliability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC

As often as you have deleted bulks of text, you may be confused as to whose sources you have been deleting. The deleted sources I am referring to were articles written by Moojan Momen, Adib Taherzadeh, and Rúhíyyih Khanum, which are all third party sources referring to Free Bahá'ís. For example, view the version of 22:43, 2 June 2017. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of a 2017 era naming of a "group" named in the 1970s era in a single primary text claiming relationship to a 1920s era single claim is all OR. That's why we keep deleting sources that do not establish the reality of the group. There are no scholarly sources examining the reality of the "group" as such but rather a couple individuals who had no contemporaneous communication, then, or since, recognized in any scholarly source. There is no "group". Smkolins (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Free Bahá'ís#Sources for the quotes from sources. They indicate the term "Free Baha'is" was used to describe a few disconnected people that did not sustain a denomination of any significance. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Nick Magazine

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect I found half a sentence suggesting connection to satanism (J. Lewis; Henrik Bogdan (12 January 2016). Sexuality and New Religious Movements. Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 131–. ISBN 978-1-137-38643-4.). But that's not enough for notability. At best, soft delete through redirect to Church of Satan where it could be merged into a media section, if it existed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really notable but will agree with above suggestion to merge into possible media section on a more relevant page. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Independent Wrestling Federations

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to social media, wikis, wrestling fansites, or trivial mentions. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 02:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are subpages of the above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 02:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 02:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Agree with the nom. Further, the Australian parts appears to have a conflict of interest through User AVBrisbane although it could be a case of owning the articles as his claim to a Brisbane promotion that he is a member of (so he says on his talk page) is a member of the AIWF when the promotion was not listed on the official website appoears to indicate. At this point it appears to be a fansite arrangement when no notability exists per the nom. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as spam and excessive amounts of red links; did the creator meant that the articles should exist on all of these entities? Better raze this future walled garden to the ground now. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complication (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as tagged since July 2015. The source in the article is not reliable. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With a song that didn't chart, wasn't nominated for awards and only recorded twice by the same artist it fails WP:NSONG and so I did not expect to find any sources to help it meet WP:GNG. I was not disappointed when I did my Google search and found nothing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittively, when I voted keep on the last AfD, I saw the song mentioned in Monks articles all the time (I was writing a GA for the band at the time). However, I now know that the song needs standalone sources to be considered notable. An obvious fail of WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find significant coverage for this song, only brief mentions within reviews of the parent album (e.g., [5][6][7]). Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. gongshow talk 02:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly McCall

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

The content isn't so much unsourced an non existent, technical passes through award win aside there appears to be no additional sourced content to add. On that basis clearly fails below the line. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be just two sentences in this article to cite three films which this actress was in, and two of them are in wikilink text, indicating that these films have articles in Wikipedia. So, could this be merged with one of these two articles?Vorbee (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McCall's roles in the two blue-linked films were minor, one of several performers in a large group sex scene in each film. This would be merging trivia about an extra. IAFD indicates a larger role in Tangerine, but do reliable sources acknowledge it? • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced and non-notable BLP. --Lockley (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of billboard hot 100 11 to 20 peaks in 1958

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe the Billboard top ten lists are already bordering WP:IINFO, but taking these to top 20 songs, especially done in this manner (just showing Hot 100 peaks of 11 through 20) is even more indiscriminate and simply WP:LISTCRUFT for chart enthusiasts. I consider it similar to AfDs for lists of number-two hit songs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015) which have been deleted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added list for 1970 after the first delete !vote below. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Completely WP:LISTCRUFT, using the same rationale as the previous two AfD's mentioned. Ajf773 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. The top-10 lists are useful, but these lists are cruft. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I agree with User:Power~enwiki that Top 10 lists are useful and pass WP:GNG but that these are cruft. What's up next? List of Billboard Hot 100 21 to 30 peaks? List of losing World Series teams? List of losing FA Cup semi-finalists? No, thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have asked @Aidanis20: to refrain from creating more of these lists pending the results of this AfD, but List of Billboard Hot 100 11 to 20 peaks in 1960 has now been published and should be included in this nomination. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Include it. Ajf773 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow a full seven days of discussion on all of the articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Completely esoteric chart information, listcruft, probable COPYVIO, unsourced, I could probably cite a few more things. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars . Can we add the following years to this debate? 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967. Despite your warnings, they were created anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it could extend this discussion another week, I thought I'd let this one conclude and, assuming a consensus to delete, I would PROD those ones. If the author removed them, I'd nominate them in a new AfD, citing the consensus of this one. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus against this remaining as a stand alone article. Beyond there is some divergence in opinion with some arguing for a merge, but most seem to believe any worthwhile content already exists in the proposed target article. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Baxter (Last Man Standing)

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

Article created by sock of StewieRox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which seemed to only be created as they tried to delete other articles and content involving animation for being too 'coarse'. Character on a now-cancelled sitcom who is basically an archetype lead 'father' character seen on most every sitcom for decades, using 2011 'fall preview' articles to describe the development process of the series in a lax attempt to describe the character, and then falling apart in the middle with a 'type-what-I-see' recap of the character's six seasons with no sources there before finally coming back with questionable sources involving the show's cancellation. This article is basically a failed WP:POINTy WP:COATRACK trying to use a news story that's already burned out. Nate • (chatter) 20:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nomination is more interesting read then the article. Nominator should contribute to wikipedia or something Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series) per WP:ATD-M. Neither the nom nor the above !voter articulate why a merge is inappropriate, and are thus non-policy-based rationales. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I say that was not in the nomination? If someone wants to merge in some info they are welcome. The nomintion will be here all week. Title makes a poor redirect and given history, is likely to be abused if not deleted. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything in this article is on the Last Man Standing page or could be added to the Last Man standing page.ANDREWs13 22:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any reason to have this as a separate article. There's no space issue at Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series). Gab4gab (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with ANDREWs13 in that all of the information from this article already appears to be in the parent page so I do not see the value in a merge. I would also be okay with a redirect. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series) to preserve history, so any editor who may want to selectively merge any content would be able to do so by accessing the history. f e minist 00:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series). I don't see enough notability for the character to have a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything in the article is already in Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series) so there is nothing to merge back there. In fact the content was split out from that article in the first place. The "Development" section of the article is an almost exact copy of Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series)#Development and casting, with only 3 words having been changed. The rest of the prose is essentially a summary of the article from which it was sourced. There is nothing at all to be gained by keeping this as a redirect. As it stands, the article violates WP:CWW because no attribution for the copy and paste content has been provided. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Having been relisted and in the absence of any evidence of any previous Proding or attempted deletion by AfD I am treating this as an expired Prod per deletion guidelines. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Bhat

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

not notable model, and actor in one noin-notable film role -a minor chacter in what appraers toa aweful flop/ DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Twice relisted with the sole vote being delete and no evidence of a previous attempted deletion by Prod or AfD. I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superbrands Council

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

WP:NOTDIR. A spectular but unencyclopedic unsourced list of non-notable people relating to a barely notable organisation Ajf773 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Superbrands Councils are part of Superbrands and are mentioned in that article, so the introduction could be merged there. Peter James (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- listcruft & almost all entries non notable. The article seems to exist to list the names of the executives -- for vanity reasons? In any case, no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Hoffmann

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

Sourced almost entirely to primary sources, seems to fail WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG unless my WP:BEFORE is missing something. Waggie (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are affiliated and/or personal sites with no truely independent coverage of her work. I'd expect atleast some coverage in independent art magazines, expert websites or newspapers for a short biographical article. A Google search revealed no possible additional sources (aside from a few passing mentions and a lot of false positives with different "Martina Hoffmann"s). The article fails to mention any significant works, that may have received wider attention, or any other evidence for encyclopedic notability - the vague claim about her being "a central figure for contemporary visionary art" is insufficiently sourced. GermanJoe (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - a similar draft version still exists at Draft:Martina Hoffmann, if the article creator wants to continue work, and submit a new draft with more independent sources for AfC review later. GermanJoe (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks notability and reliable independent secondary sources. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BuySell Magazine

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

Ineligible for PROD (2007). Doesn't appear to be a notable magazine. Cyprus press office website doesn't mention it, second ref is a mention in an article about real estate on Cyprus in general, third ref is itself. Can't find any others. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NMAGAZINE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage. It exists. That's not enough per policies cited by the nom. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES/directory.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator--MassiveYR ♠ 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Appears to be an old peomo piece by WP:SPA Demetrdc. It looks as though it may no longer be being published, and is just a website at present. --Bejnar (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fails GNG and has no value to the encyclopedia YouTooNow (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cradle of Thorns#Feed-Us (1994–1995). Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feed-Us

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

Unexplained contested PROD. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cradle of Thorns (or Cradle of Thorns#Feed-Us (1994–1995) - non-notable album by a band of minor importance in the history of world music; only third-party ref is to AllMusic which reviews a lot of stuff. The band page already contains more text about the album than this webpage does, which is mostly lists and tables copied from the CD booklet. Unless there are more reviews I can't find. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cradle of Thorns § Feed-Us (1994–1995). Not finding any significant coverage in rs to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 20:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep !votes have been determined to be invalid. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E la Carte

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. References are press releases and/or advertorials and fail WP:ORGIND. No evidence of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the use of third-party sources, the tone of the article is indeed more a blurb than anything.TH1980 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Post is not in violation of WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG, and WP:ORIGIND as references are not directly linked to company website or press releases. Citations are provided from reputable and non-biased news sources. Please refer to citation #11 - This article was written by Alex Conrad of Forbes, who is a well known journalist. Most references provided on the page are in fact notable and are not self-promotional. User:LuckyHorse (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)— LuckyHorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article tone was indeed more like a corporate blurb and was outdated, but has now been partly edited. Still more edits are required. Company is notable for technology and payments industry influence, covered independently in respected secondary sources like USA Today, NBC News and FastCompany. Randor5602 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)— Randor5602 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the obvious SP/SPA keep-!votes, more discussion seems needed since the other delete !votes cite no policy or guideline and merely advocate deletion based on tone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two editors with Keep !votes above have been blocked as sock/meat puppets. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stroke out the "keep" votes by blocked editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you K.e.coffman. Note that the editors also !voted on a related article's AfD on Rajat Suri and I have struck their !votes there too. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The available sources cover routine news & product announcements. This (likely paid) WP:ADVOCACY can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no evidence this is paid or WP:Advocacy. This company and product is covered in-depth in technology publications like TechCrunch and appears to be commonly available in major restaurant brands where readers of Wikipedia eat. Also tone does not seem worse than other Wikipedia articles? 173.239.207.50 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike comment by blocked user; CU block. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with edits to add coverage. Other similar tech companies are written up on Wikipedia and deemed notable, like WePay and Hipmunk YouTooNow (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another newly created account !voting for Keep? What are the chances? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all then WP:Other stuff. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention of Blindness Society of Metropolitan Washington

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

Promotional article for local organization with no general significance. Ref 1 does not mention the organization. Ref 2 is a directory. Ref 3 includes it among others in a study. Ref 4 I cannot find, but it would appear to be a directory. Ref 5 is a press release from an affiliated organization. Ref 6 is a directory. Everything else in Google appears to be a directory also, or at best a press release, such as this one in a neighborhood newspaper. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be an organization that does worthwhile work, but it isn't of encyclopedic interest. More to the point, I don't see how it passes either WP:NORG or the general notability guidelines. By the way, I was able to rescue that "Ref 4" -- it's a brief press release from the subject organization that was re-printed in an NIH newsletter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research and WP:ADVOCACY. No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bumperboy Loses His Marbles

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of references to it on line, but mainly sales, not independant substantial reviews alas, I think it will be "Bumperboy Loses His wikipedia Page" Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable graphic novel (by, frankly, what appears to be a non-notable publisher, but that's another story). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOOK, lack substantive coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Wallet

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Sources fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per User:HighKing. –XboxGamer22408^Talk 16:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this page when I was new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the notability policies. I agree that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Daylen (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @XboxGamer22408: and @HighKing: On second thoughts, how would you feel about merging the main ideas of the section into the TD Canada Trust article (the creator of the app)? Daylen (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Daylen, how does that fit with President's Choice Financial's use of Ugo as per the article?
    - Information about Ugo would also be included on the President's Choice Financial article. Daylen (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the proposed merge(s)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Not much here to merge. Better off improving those other articles de novo. --Bejnar (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 19:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erli Çupi

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

Contested PROD. The player hasn't played at a senior international level. While the article credits him with two appearances for a club in his native Albania, which would qualify him per NFOOTY, I note that the "Soccerway" source indicates that these two appearances consisted of 0 minutes' actual playing time. Per NFOOTY, "played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute", which he doesn't meet. The appearances for the Turkish club are not at the level required by that guideline. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Check well at his Soccerway matches he played also a full 90-minutes match, and then 32 minutes as a substitute. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 10:10, 14 June 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. Soccer way indicates he was involved in three national cup /league matches:

Flamurtari Vlore - an unused sub, does not count towards NFOOTY

Sopoti Liberazhd - not a cup game involving two teams from fully professional leagues, does not count towards NFOOTY

~~Tomori Berat - not a cup game involving two teams from fully professional leagues, does not count towards NFOOTY~~

Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Didn't see there were two groups in the first division, so thought they were lower league teams. Apologies. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY per the excellent work by Fenix down. Smartyllama (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC) (Revised !vote below per information from Eni.Sukthi.Durres) Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The player is full professional because he has played two matches in the Albanian Cup 2015–16 season for Skënderbeu Korçë (2015–16 Albanian Superliga team) against two (2015–16 Albanian First Division teams) Tomori Berat and Sopoti Librazhd. Both Albanian Superliga and Albanian First Division are full professional leagues, so you can verify, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Those are teams in Fully Professional Leagues. I'm not sure why Fenix thinks they weren't. I'm striking my !vote above and revising it below. I would encourage Fenix down to do the same. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually does pass WP:NFOOTY, as he played in two cup matches between teams from fully professional leagues. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Audit Department, Luxembourg

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

It appears this is an article about an individual internal department of Société Générale that may have been created in error some time ago. This is an unnecessary fork of the main article and in itself not very informative as the duties of a bank's internal audit function are outlined at very high levels. This is already covered under internal audit. The article is therefore redundant. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research on a gov agency with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the article itself says, a firm such as Société Générale is required to have an internal audit department. Nothing provided in the article text or found by searches indicates this to be any more than a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL department in an institution. Even merging the text into a subsection such as Société_Générale#Corporate_affairs would give undue attention to the mundane. AllyD (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Michaels (voice actress)

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

Unsourced since the beginning of Wikipedia time. Voice artists do work, this is true, but it is not all that common for them to pass the GNG. Having done a lot of voices doesn't make one notable: having one's work discussed in-depth in reliable sources does. I do not see that that's the case here; I do not find any such discussion at all. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought maybe nom was hyperbolizing with "since the beginning of Wikipedia time", but it turns out the article really was first created in 2003. As always, voice actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because some (or a lot of) roles can be listed — they get over NACTOR when they're the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage about their work in those roles. But fourteen years to infinity later, there's still not a single source being shown here besides the fact that she has an IMDb profile — which, as always, is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie either: IMDb is user-generated, so it can and does contain uncaught errors, and inclusion on there is a WP:ROUTINE distinction that every working actor in existence gets the moment they have one role to list. So no, nothing stated or sourced here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With a single delete vote and having been twice relisted with no history of previous contested deletion, I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title Contender

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

This also appears to be a horse that fails notability; won two grade III races, and while they are somewhat notable Grade III races, there is nothing in this article to distinguish this horse...he's a gelding and his last race was a claiming race in 2015 (per equibase) Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - He had a decent 2013 but tailed off badly to fall to the claiming ranks. Was claimed after last start for $16K and nothing since. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Twice relisted an only one vote (delete). It's time to move on Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming Insane

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

A promo EP that had a limited release with no coverage to speak of. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article talks about the EP named Becoming Insane and also a song by the same name on Vicious Delicious. I'm not sure if the article is straying off topic since it's talking about both the EP and the album single. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single reference. Not notable. Promotional page written by an SPA. --Lockley (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Twice relisted with no keeps. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vytautas Nekrošius

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

Fails WP:GNG Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There is not much coverage online ABOUT him, although the search for that is complicated by the many, many opinion articles written BY him. That, in itself does not confer notability. However, there is some coverage (1 and 2) of his selection as the chairman of the Lithuanian society of legal professionals. In 2015, he was selected as the 4th most influential legal professional in Lithuania (1), but apart from the mention that did not seem to result in significant coverage. There are also some articles about him becoming the youngest member of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (1 and 2), however, given that the two articles are verbatim copies of each other and not attributed it's almost definitely a press release and thus can not be used to establish notability. Unless something else surfaces, it's not enough to pass WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Tsouvelekakis

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

Article creator contested PROD. Article is about a businessman where the coverage that exists is mainly him giving quotes about businesses or organizations he is associated with, and would be trivial coverage under WP:GNG. The article also mentions his sporting accomplishments, but these all seem to be at a youth level and don't meet our inclusion criteria for sportspeople. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Pity the article creator didn't share with us his rationale for deprodding. Ravenswing 02:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO; note the two external links right in the middle of it:

-Monaco Economic Board -Monaco Ambassadors' Club

A malformed, spammy article; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balbinder Singh

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

Was BLPPRODed and a couple of links were adde. However these are not the kind of links that provide any notability. Ghits only provide social media. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not sure I understand..."Ghits"?....(BBC, The Sun Newspaper and The Star) All authority sites and there are countless examples of Wiki pages with these references have been deemed suitable? Can you elaborate as to where it fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.162.220 (talk) 03:10, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Ghits are Google returns to a search. In this day and age, it's generally (there are exceptions) considered by Wikipedia than any living person of serious note will have notable, in-depth, dedicated articles about them in the quality nationa press rather than redtops. The sources should be verifiable - the BBC source is not. This person might be a millionaire and he might be well known for throwing money about, but notability criteria for Wikipedia are not fulfilled. And please sign your posts and place them correctly. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few mentions in passing, niche media - does not seem to pass WP:BIO and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY, with trivial content such as "Bally purchased a nightclub and two bars in 2002..." Also note the use of the first name, which is a strong indicator of an article that has been created by someone close to the subject. Overall, no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinners Music

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP. Sources mentioned are either company profiles, company listings or blogs. Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Kleuske why do you consider company information, academic sources and blogs not to be valid sources of information for this page ? WP:GNG IMO this article meets the general notability guidelines WP:CORP I'd be interested to know if others consider the company elements of this article should be removed instead of the articles deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by John35 3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References aren't specific about this they only mention this label as a side note. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through and wikilinked the founder, his defunct radio show, and all the artists. The only thing that turned blue was a redirect to an unrelated band in California. The owner of this operation is a teacher, with the label a hobby that "represents" hi,self and a few other non-notable artists. All those redlinks tell the story. Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London Teacher Training College

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

No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm usually pretty tolerant of the inclusion standards for educational institutions, but there is essentially a big nothing in sources I view as reliable. Furthermore, what history I've been able to piece together doesn't inspire confidence, nor does the weaselly-worded article text. For example, although TQUK is an OFQUAL-approved body, it is not approved to accredit level 7 programs (in TEFL, or anything else for that matter) despite what is implied by the article copy. The principal (Phyllis Vannuffel) holds an honorary degree from the rather dubious St. Clements University; message board postings suggest that LTTC had a close relationship with St. Clements that was scrubbed from their website circa 2008. None of that necessarily forecloses on notability, but it does mean I'm ill-inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt in marginal sources... and that's all there seems to be. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete user contributions of the creator shows it might be a one-purpose account. Xe has been creating non-notable articles about academics. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Twice relisted with the sole vote being delete. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Dedicated

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

Per WP:NCORP. Fails to establish any sort of notability outside of the fact that they have multiple data centers throughout the US. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not the strongest consensus I've seen but enough to call it a de-facto expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Takumi Kizu

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

Per the lead, one of the most significant facts about this actor is that he is "represented by Foster Management". I can't read Japanese, but I suspect he fails WP:ACTOR. Mduvekot (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This is somewhat of a borderline case. The current article is not well-written (though it follows the form of the Japanese article), but his main claim to fame is starring in the current edition of the Super Sentai series. That is a significant role, but that is not yet the multiple roles needed by WP:NACTOR. Some actors debuting in tokusatsu series have gone on to become major stars (Joe Odagiri is a good example), but some have not. The current article has sourcing only in terms of his initial casting, and thus as coverage is not that significant. Searches come up with a few more: [8], [9], [10], etc. So it is not as if there is nothing out there, but I feel this is still a bit WP:TOOSOON. Michitaro (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- as above, borderline. He does have a Japanese page, but he has had very few roles, and as an actor, he works part time as a hairdresser (seems to imply he isn't a big actor, but not sure!) Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Right now there's a pretty clear consensus to delete, and that's how I'll close this. There is no doubt that from an original attack/SYNTH page this has been greatly improved (thanks to NewsandEventsGuy and E.M.Gregory), but "essentially POV" wasn't the only argument brought up to delete. I cannot redirect this since there are too many options provided, even if a number of editors agree on one of them ("Protests against Donald Trump"), because E.M.Gregory makes a good argument for "Anti-Trump movement". If there is content in the current article that editors feel should be recovered to merge into another article, we can do that later--if there's agreement on it. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump resistance

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

Poorly written polemic that fails WP:NPOV, written by blocked user [11]. Example of poor sourcing used to push a POV showing only purpose of page: I had to remove a source from 2007 used to cite supposed claims for 2016 about " the liberal biased news media". Appears to have been written as a WP:BLP attack page. Sagecandor (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whole thing appears to be WP:SYNTH strung together by the personal POV of the writer. Example:
- News media outlets, that began the reporting on the unsubstantiated claim of the Trump campaign and the Russians colluding to steal the presidential election from the Democrat Party candidate, and then persisted in speculation about criminal charges and impeachable offenses. --
The cited sources for this do not mention "Trump resistance". Sagecandor (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: Social justice warriors (SJW’s), enabled by the academy and coddled by Hillary Clinton, who were fueled by a mix of intolerance and entitlement, began to consider what they’ll do next. (Sourced to the New York Post). -- Really ??? Sagecandor (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepUnsure about this, yes there appears to be a "trump Resistance, and as we have a pages on a similar (according to at least one source) groups (like the tea party) I see no reason not to have this one. but yes it is also heavy reliant on Synthases. It needs a lot of work.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Some sources [12][13][14] [15] And websites dedicated to it [16][reply]
Keep but refocus? My first thought was in alignment with nom, this feels like an attack page and filled with OR, and I still think it does meet the last. However, there have been a lot of criticism of Trump of various forms and I am surprised we don't have an article on Criticism of Donald Trump's Presidency, which would be a valid topic (when careful NPOV adherence is used) and would help group all the various efforts between pre-election and post-election aspects. This article could be used as that basis but it would absolutely need refocusing to be a proper "Criticism of..." article to avoid issue with NPOV. It should heavily rely on existing articles when the do exist, eg touching on Stop Trump movement, or the appropriate Protests against Donald Trump. I do not think there is, without engaging in OR, a true "resistance" here in as there being one singular group, but there definitely are numerous criticisms towards Trump that is reflected here. Barring that, I would otherwise agree that maybe WP:TNT could apply and would alternatively !vote delete for this in favor of a better article start. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem:I think you're right about WP:TNT in this particular case, as WP:BLP attack page riddled with POV backed up to terrible sources like Infowars.com. Sagecandor (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, there's sourcing issues too. Again, I think there's a theme here that is a valid topic if turned around into a standard en.wiki apporach, but TNT is probably best in the long run due to the sources that have been used in this current version. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Masem:So how do we go about WP:TNT for WP:Attack page ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would be a possible result of this AFD closure. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        We could merge it to Protests against Donald Trump. Or we could TNT it, rename it to a more encyclopedic name, such as Resistance to the Trump administration, and merge the protests page into it, though that might make the article too big. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd support WP:TNT followed by redirect, needs to be deleted to get rid of the attack crap. Sagecandor (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are a lot of sources out there that discuss the "Trump resistance" (and/or the "anti-Trump resistance" or the "anti-Trump movement"); this particular phrasing is common enough to be at least defensible as the article title. Regardless of anyone's individual views on the politics of it all, there's clearly a notable political concept there. On the other hand, this is a weak keep because the current state of the article here just makes it really, really hard to say nice things about. I'm not sure it's quite to the TNT point of no return, but I can empathize with those who do. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping an article requires not only that there are possible sources, which there clearly are for the phrase, but also that those sources are used to support text that meets the core content policies. There is no text here that does. Core content overrides notability and is not optional. This egregious violation of those standards needs to be deleted and a new article can be created in its place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump. A redirect to Indivisible movement would be WP:UNDUE. No content on this page worth merging into either of those articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a non-starter, people protest all the time, this is no different. — Calvin999 21:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are already a zillion articles in Category:Opposition to Donald Trump, and the significant material in this article could be easily merged into those existing articles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump; Wikipedia does not need (just yet) two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump; because that's what Trump Resistance actually means. --Skr15081997 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump; 'Protests against Donald Trump' is a much better-written article about what's basically the same topic, especially in light of Lettuce's actions. --EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Came across this AfD on BLPN. The page's current content could be easily merged into the countless other Opposition to Trump articles. Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The present article exists solely as a POV-fork of Protests against Donald Trump. For context, see this revision of the article, which spectacularly fails WP:NPOV. The current revision has had the gross policy failures mostly removed, but there is now no reasonable scope for a separate article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete/Redirect??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump; But allow someone to start this again if they can skillfully add material about the topic that is different than "protests". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Protests are protests, and we should continue to cover them. The Trump Resistance movement or Anti-Trump movement, is related to the anti-Trump protests, but it is a separate and notable topic. Just as the Trump protests were a separate topic from the Trump campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in disagreement. This could indeed by an article on the condition that a competent editor is working on it. I'm not going to try to originate text, but I can help navigate issues as they arise. Are you able/willing to take on the job of transforming this into something useful? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: well, I made a start.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article because I was looking to see whether we had one in the wake of yesterday's shooting. The term I was searching WP for was anti-Trump, and this was the hit I got. So I looked a little further:

Future of the resistance: Where does the anti-Trump movement go from here?,Salon, 17 May 2017 [17]
Your Guide to the Sprawling New Anti-Trump Resistance Movement The Nation , February 6, 2017 [18]
The Anti-Trump Movement: Recover, Resist, Reform American Prospect, 4 April 2017 [19]
The Real Hero of the Trump Resistance? James Madison. National Review, June 14, 2017 [20]
The Trump Resistance: A Progress Report The New Yorker, 17 April, 2017 [21]
The Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ in Red States The Atlantic, 17 February 2017, [22].

Lots more available. It's a paltry article, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The topic passes WP:GNG. We just need to improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory. In its current state it is a lousy article but there is a lot of content that should be developed into this subject. We have a case of poor execution, not an issue with WP:N notability or WP:GNG coverage. Trackinfo (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that we need to reboot this discussion in the light of the response to yesterday's shooting. Naomi Klein: Any Efforts to Equate Hateful Violence with Trump Resistance Are Lies [23] for the defense and Ann Coulter The ‘Resistance’ Goes Live-Fire for the prosecution.[24]. It might have been possible to dismiss this movement two days ago, but the fact that the shooter was a backer of the "resistance" puts it firmly in the notable category, and none of the other articles we have is about this self-described anti-Trump "resistance" as a movement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory, I disagree for two reasons. First, it would be inaccurate and offensive for Wikipedia to suggest that the shooter represents the views of this "resistance" which almost entirely rejects violence. Second, we already have lots of articles to which this can properly redirect, including Donald Trump protests and Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. The shooter undoubtedly supported both of those, and this could be briefly mentioned in both as an extreme example. Plus we can give the shooting its very own article, 2017 Congressional baseball shooting. No need to do more than that, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.) I suggested only that the coverage of the shooter increases the notability of the topic, not that we should add it to the page. and B.) there is a resistance movement; it is more than a series of protests and it is not co-terminus with the list of Efforts to impeach.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Made a start towards a proper article, Revised lede following The Nation (figured they should know,) created a substantively sourced section defining the movement, added participating organizations and a split over this within the LGBT community.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I appreciate the good work going into this piece, it seems like this is a fork of Protests against Donald Trump, etc. A merge would seem to be the ticket. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with E.M.Gregory (and thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, I hadn't seen that before). It needs a LOT of cleanup because it's still very POV, but it's definitely a notable topic and I don't think it's so bad that we need to blow it up and start over. Rockypedia (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Eggishorn and Sławomir Biały's reasoning. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent of those "reasonings" was four days ago; The article has changed considerably since then, and is much improved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a gNews search by date [25] showing that, argue as we may, the term/concept is in regular use. Note however that "resistance" and "Anti-Trump resistance" appears to be more in use the further left you look. I propose that, after this AfD closes, we move the article to Anti-Trump movement (a title that currently directs to [[Anti-Trump protests) to signify that this is a broad "movement" unified by its opposition to a single man/administration. We have articles on many of the participating groups. As I see it, the article needs work, but the notability and felt need in the press and in the general conversation for a way to discuss the broad anti-Trump movement - not merely the street protests - is clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I looked and agree, this is almost certainly a hoax. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City Metropolitan College London

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

Google offers no evidence that this institution ever existed. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. I think this could be handled through WP:PROD but we're here now :) Shritwod (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, Shritwod, but there is a lot of resistance to deleting articles about educational institutions in some quarters, so I thought an AfD was best. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, as I said the AfD is in progress now.. there are absolutely no references that I can find to an institution of this name in London. I suspect that this article has been created for nefarious purposes. Shritwod (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Pulo Mas murders

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

While tragic, doesn't pass WP:GNG, should be deleted as per WP:NOTNEWS. Was deprodded without rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. It is now the middle of 2017 and there is still nothing significant to add to this article. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Here in Indonesia the news coverage has faded away. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Dougherty

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Trying one last time to generate any discussion on this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this probably could have been speedily deleted as its only reference is a stats page. Zero hits on news searches as a player or coach. Yosemiter (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Degurse

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, doesn't meet NHOCKEY Power~enwiki (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little coverage and what does exist is only routine local newspapers. Seems to have had his number retired by a low level team. Otherwise fails GNG and definitely fails NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisted three times with the sole registered vote being delete. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Van Vliet

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ meets NHOCKEY point 4: "Achieved preeminent honors in a lower minor or major junior league" Power~enwiki (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Please re-read the NHOCKEY guideline again, the SPHL (and other low level leagues) has not been proven to have players with presumed notability in any regard as described with the list linked in the first sentence of NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I misread the article, I thought the honors were from his time in the ECHL. I remain neutral. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only appears to have WP:ROUTINE coverage, so fails GNG by way of no significant coverage (regardless of NHOCKEY). Also fails NHOCKEY, highest achievement was an award in a lower league that has no presumed player notability per the NHOCKEY League Assessment, so the player must meet GNG to be proven notable. Yosemiter (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisted three times with the sole vote being delete. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Laney

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

Sources are mostly promotional, trivial, or do not mention him at all. Songs that he's written are grossly overinflated, as most of them are by non-notable artists or were not released as singles. No reliable sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by SPA that has been poorly-sourced since the beginning. As per nom, the sources given are either not significant or not reliable. Links from other articles to this one are bare credits listings on albums that themselves do not show significant evidence for notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Speedy Deleted under WP:G7 by PhilKnight (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmet Gift Baskets

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

absurdly inconsequential. I would have listed for A7 except that some of the statements n the article might be interpreted as claims to significance. DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. The articles about the Guinness World Records they've set don't count as "significant coverage" as they aren't actually about the company. The rest is just routine stuff - a company doing what it's supposed to be doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there are plenty of examples of in-depth coverage here, including The Telegraph, Newsweek, and Fox News. I actually came across them when I read about their penalty, and found a bunch of other stuff. I'm not sure I agree about the Guinness Records being worth nothing, I found those articles outside the base region of the company, which is why I thought I would take a crack at it. Most of the stuff online is written by the company but I tried to be careful to avoid any primary sources where possible. I will see if I can find any more references to help support a claim of GNG. Isingness (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're the article's creator. In the future, I suggest trying to find the references BEFORE you publish your articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam. References provides are mostly advertorials and fail WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks like the author just threw every reference they could find into the article. The filed complaint by Michael Jackson's estate over the kingofpop.com domain is probably more notable but Comments on sources below:
- New Hampshire Union Leader article is an advertorial complete with history/problem/photos/quotes/financial info and projections. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This mixergy article is labelled a "case study" but in actuality, is a video advertisement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- Another New Hampshire Union Leader article that solicits reactions from local business owners about the impact of a "harsh winter". It is an inconsequential interview and quote an the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- inc.com article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a transcript of an interview.
- NH Business Review article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a top 500 list which includes the company name
- thenation.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mention in passing in relation to moving down and up Google's search results.
- Google Books result fails as it is simply referencing the inclusion in inc.com's top 500
- Another NHUL article (advertorial) that fails WP:ORGIND
- Yet another NHUL article that mentions in passing that "work is nearing completion at a new 120,000 square foot building in Exeter for GourmetGiftBaskets.com ..." Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- And another NHUL article that mentions the company in passing from Executive Council minutes with "Authorized the Community Development Finance Authority to award the town of Exeter $499,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant money to assist GourmetGiftBaskets.com with purchasing equipment at its new facility on Epping Road in Exeter." Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a routine business announcement and fails WP:ORGIND as it is a Press Release written by the company.
- This law360 article and this foxnews article reports the Michael Jackson estate suing KingOfPop.com (owned by the GGB) because the name is too similar with MJ moniker. Fails WP:ILLCON
- latinpost.com article includes GGB products as a suggestion for a holiday gift basket. It is not in-depth coverage and mostly copies product descriptions from their website. Not in-depth coverage.
- reviewjournal.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it merely mentions the company in passing.
- This Christian Science Monitor article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and [[WP:ORGIND] as the article includes 3 sentences which are quotes from a company officer
- This miaminewtimes article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it merely discusses some of the products on sale.
- this thedailymeal article fails as the article is not independent (says at the end that "coverage made possible by participating in a sponsored tasting")
- This telegraph article is the Guinness Record giant cupcake. In my opinion, it is a corporate advert and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. These types of articles fail the criteria for establishing notability. The article is really about the cupcake, not the company.
- This newsweek article fails for the same reason. Another corporate advert, this time for the Largest Iced Coffee.
Finally, I could not get access to p.11 of the book weird-o-pedia so no comment on that one. Of the above sources, other editors may be of the opinion that the Guinness records and the Michael Jackson lawsuit meet the criteria for establishing notability but until I see a rational argument, I am of the opinion that there isn't enough in those articles to support a Keep !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the content belongs on the company web site, not here. Wikipedia is not an avenue for promotion for unremarkable private businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Littman

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

Fails WP:BIO. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Also self promotion and conflict of interest as the article is about its creator. The1337gamer (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for "Jay Littman" turned up three notable/reliable sources... but none of them are about Jay Littman the video game developer. The resume style of the article doesn't provide a good starting place for improvements anyway; even if I thought the subject met notability standards, WP: TNT would be appropriate.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources except unreliable MobyGames and the writing is unreadable. –Cognissonance (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. WarBirds is the closest redirect target, based on this interview, but he isn't mentioned by name and his role is not described as significant enough to warrant mentioning. czar 20:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Easily the article is for self promotion, lacks third-party independent coverage and the article is created by a user of the same name. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. After two relists and with a reasonable level of participation we are all over the place. IMO a further relisting is unlikely to bring clarity to this discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilltjärnen (Frostviken, Jämtland, 720074-142259)

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

There's no indication why these lakes are notable, and they certainly aren't notable due to their size. According to lakes of Sweden, there are "over 97,500 lakes larger than 2 acres (8,100 m2)". According to the article, this lake has an area 0.0321 km2 (32.1 m2), over two orders of magnitude smaller than the largest hundred thousand lakes. There'd have to be another compelling argument for its significance, and I'm simply not seeing it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 0.0321 km^2 is 32,100 m^2, not 32.1 m^2. So it's easily in the top 100,000. But so are 99,999 other lakes. That doesn't make it notable, but at least get the math right. Smartyllama (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whatever the actual size, there's no sign of significant coverage in WP:RS. Most searches turn up a village or kindergarten with the same name rather than the lake. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we love Sweden, but if every "LittleTarn" (my translation) is to have an article, we might as well found a TarnsWiki or an InsigGeoFeaturesWiki for true devotees. No, being a minor geographical feature does not of itself guarantee notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEO. The other above seems to use a WHOCARES rationale. But that is not relevant. This article definitley needs references and any kind of expansion but it is part of the Geography section of Wikipedia. A lake or a geographic place is not notable or not notable, it is geography. And the admin or user that closes this AfD should consider that even if Delete is in majority here. A article in SvWik exists so that is also an indicator that this place is just not "another spot in Sweden". BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean WP:NGEO or perhaps WP:GEOLAND, not the Geographical coordinates Wikiproject. Even in that case, the statement you are apparently trying to make that geographical places are exempt from notability is not backed up by that guideline: ...geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Emphasis in original. The challenge to notability has been stated; there need to be sources presented that establish notability and not mere existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ordinary (and, I think, legal) meaning of presumed is that something will be treated that way unless there is evidence to show the contrary. This allows for the possibility that a truly thorough search would find no evidence -- this would include print as well as online sources in relevant languages. There is no assertion that such as search was done. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Truly" is a weasel word within the meaning of the act, does it include a trawl of forgotten mediaeval manuscripts in minor Danish monasteries or whatever. However, a careful and thorough google search, with knowledge of Swedish, fails to find anything usable. This is a very minor geographic feature. If you are in sophistical mood, recall that a headland, bay, or creek on that minor tarn is also a feature. Include each of them as separate articles - that way madness lies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG also got it the wrong way around. It's not that geographical features are presumed to meet WP:GNG. It's that when a feature meets WP:GNG, it's presumed to be notable. This tarn doesn't meet WP:GNG as far as I can see. Sjö (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NGEO: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." (My italics.) There is no information beyond statistics and coordinates, not even in the Swedish article, and it appears that there is none to be found. WP:NGEO points to WP:GNG and says also that a geographical feature that meets WP:GNG isn't guaranteed to be notable. This tarn doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Sjö (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NGEO, geographic places are generally notable unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, which has not been given. Smartyllama (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Did you read the shortcut you provided? It says: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I hope you're not saying these tarns are populated! Sjö provided the relevant bullet point above. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steve Sailer. Clear consensus to not keep. No consensus whether to delete or merge, given that "delete and merge" is not possible for attribution reasons. The redirect allows people to figure out editorially whether anything should be merged from the history. Sandstein 21:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sailer Strategy

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

Some political-strategy proposal, with no evidence that it's being implemented or even seriously discussed. As the inexplicably removed PROD tag put it, "brief mentions with no in-depth discussion". Calton | Talk 14:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from being quite the buzzword on VDARE (according to Google), I can't find much usage of the term in reputable media. Yintan 19:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Steve Sailer. While not notable on its own, this appears to be a legitimate concept associated with him. Reason is Immortal (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge to Steve Sailer for precisely the reasons given by Reason is Immortal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Steve Sailer. The entire contents of this short article are of the form "Steve Sailer said such-and-such". There is no sign that the so-called Sailer Strategy is anything other than the thoughts of Steve Sailer. We don't have separate Wikipedia articles for Harry Truman and Harry Truman's ideas, so neither should be do so here. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Steve Sailer is notable, Sailer Strategy is not even notable enough for a redirect. I don't see any content worth merging, either. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Schaner

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Assistant professor at Dartmouth; described as "rising" in the article, which is usually a synonym for "not there yet". Google Scholar citations do not suggest that she has had a significant impact in her field at this point; maybe someday. I had speedy-deleted the article per A7, but restored it at the request of another admin. MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 7 is WP:Too soon for a well cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:PROF, and the sources in the article are not independent of the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. At least borderline notable, based on the citations. The actual citation record from Google Scholar is : 106, 40, 41, 34, 42, 37, 41, 28, 30, 23, 9, 7 etc. . Normally we consider anyone who has published one of more papers with citation over 100 to be notable. Economics is a field with a medium citation density, not a high citation density such as the biomedical sciences I don't know why people keep citing a h factor as indicative of anything: giving my usual example 300, 200, 150, 50, 5, 4, 3 has h of 5, but so does 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4;the first is notable; the second is not. On the other hand , she is still an assistant professor. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[26] gives an h-index of 7. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and lacks independent secondary source - everything seems to be the work of the subject, up to an including her resume. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Suri

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

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Notability is not inherited, most sources are in relation to the company "E la Carte" and of those that mention Rajat, they are press releases or advertorials on behalf of the company. There is no evidence that Rajat is notable in his own right. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article has been edited for multiple new secondary sources that are not on behalf of the company "E la Carte", and other notable connections beyond "E la Carte" such as relationship with Zimride / Lyft Randor5602 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)— Randor5602 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The "Keep" !vote above is from an account that was created with the sole purpose of editing the topic article and !voting here. Nevertheless. From what I can see, none the sources Randor5602 added meet the criteria for establishing notability. You added the WSJ article but it is a blog, so fails as blogs are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. The Fox Business source is an interview and therefore not independent of the subject since there's nothing to indication that the "facts" were independently verified and not just repeated. The gigaom article suffers the same way. Then you've put in a section on E la Carte and referenced a bunch of articles that are actually about the company but where Rajat might be mentioned or provide a quote. These articles are not intellectually independent, notability is not inherited, they're not in-depth and therefore fail the criteria for establishing notability (the techcrunch article, the mashable article, the thefamuanonline article, usatoday article, bizjournals article, and fastcompany article). Then you've done the same thing for a previous business of Rajat's called Zimride by adding in references to articles that are about zimride and not about Rajat. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia guidelines state that anyone may !vote , so unfair to discriminate based on this and not on the merits of the facts. The WSJ article helps to establish the subject as notable within the business world - it is not a personal blog, but an essay published in a well-known mainstream business paper on how to perform as a new business leader, which shows industry influence, a criterion for notability. The other new articles that were added do establish diverse valid secondary sources that clearly independently verified facts before writing the article, including Fast Company, GigaOm and others. These are manifestly not press releases and are written by specialized journalists in the field. Randor5602 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)— Randor5602 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment Much credit to you, an apparent new editor, for adhering to guidelines on formatting and quoting policy. Not discriminating, just asking, have you edited here before and if so, what is the other account name? Also, I'll disagree on your viewpoints on sources and leave it to the closing admin to evaluate whether those sources meet or fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. As such I have blanked their !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Does not fail WP:GNG as the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While Rajat Suri is primarily recognized as CEO and co-founder of E la Carte, Rajat has also been cited in articles written by well-known and reputable journalists such as Wall Street Journal providing advice to other CEOs. He is a notable person as his experience expands beyond E la Carte. User:LuckyHorse (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)— LuckyHorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. As such I have blanked their !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- part of a WP:PROMO campaign that also includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E la Carte. No indications of notability or significance per available sources; just a businessman going about his business. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of spacecraft in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Pegasus. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 19:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Pegasus

AfDs for this article:

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

10 years after the old AfD discussion, this is still a piece of plot summary with no indication of real world importance. A short summary of the second section could be merged to List_of_spacecraft_in_Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)#Pegasus, where this should be redirecting (I propose a soft deletion). This is not a merge discussion, however, as we had an AFD on this before, so we need another AfD to overturn the old consensus. If you go looking for sources, please try to find some on the real world significance of this ship, not just more plot summaries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I've added a few sourced details to List_of_spacecraft_in_Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)#Pegasus, everything else can be deleted. The term is unambiguously related to BSG, so I support keeping a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple obvious sources discuss the critical reception of this plot element, especially in the reimagined series: Situated Ideological Allegory and Battlestar Galactica, Battlestar Galactica and International Relations, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anthony_Gierzynski/publication/301647488_Fictional_Leaders_Leadership_Stereotypes_and_Evaluations_of_Women_in_Leadership_Positions/links/571f7c7508aeaced788abbc4.pdf Fictional Leaders, Leadership Stereotypes and Evaluations of Women in Leadership Positions]. Many similar references are couched in Cain vs. Adama terms, but the fact is the Pegasus is a chintzy element from the original series, plopped into the reimagined series in a way to specifically question the U.S. use of extreme interrogation techniques and portray them as torture. The Pegasus arc deals with the rape of prisoners in a world where military power is not answerable to civilian government. The ship is a generic fictional Battlestar; the culture of sadism, authoritarianism, and Machiavellianism cannot be adequately captured if this article is merged into a list of other fictional spacecraft. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If only we had a source that provided such an analysis... but so far it seems like your WP:OR. Battlestar Galactica and International Relations" provides nothing but plot summary; there is a bit about framing of Pegasus vs Galactica (158, but you can't build notability for this from few sentences). Your third source, [27], to the following two sentences: " Razor. Razor tells the story of the Battlestar Pegasus during and after the attack of the Cylons. Admiral Helena Cain, in charge of the Pegasus at the time of the attack and a junior officer, Lt. Kendra Shaw, offer clear-cut cases of female leaders exhibiting stereotypical male traits. " I will review your first source next week when I have access to my university library. However, settign aside that noboy has yet added those sources to the article and in their current form they are pure plot summaries/OR, few sentences about framing etc. are not enough for notability. This could be enough for a paragraph, at most, at some other article, but not enough to prove notability of this. Where has Pegasus been subject to in-depth treatment beyond 2-3 sentences? Those 2-3 sentences on framing etc. can be added to List_of_spacecraft_in_Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)#Pegasus. We don't need a dedicated article that would contain stub-size content on real world framing/significance, and a lengthy, primary-source/OR fancruft summary of the fictional history/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Notability is not established, and the above analysis of the posted sources seems to indicate nothing of significance. TTN (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Schepke

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NHOCKEY. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG, all coverage is routine and stat-based (ex. [28]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: found a fair amount of WP:ROUTINE coverage, but nothing significant or non-local to indicate GNG passes. Yosemiter (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G5: creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sameera Abdulaziz Sullivan

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

most of the cited sources are not reliable. reliable ones only namechecking the subject. Saqib (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have deleted as created by a sock that will have previously blocked accounts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Power Rangers. Anyone may retarget these to more specific articles, but note WP:XY. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Power Rangers. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Campbell

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

Completely unsourced article that is nothing, but overly detailed plot summaries. Nothing proves this Power Ranger character meets WP:GNG, especially since she completely disappeared from the franchise after just 1 1/2 seasons. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also about Power Ranger character articles that are unsourced, almost all plot, and do not meet our notability guidelines.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. As written, zero indication of notability, pure plot summary. Soft deletion through redirect (to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie?) probably best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Redirect would be all right, but don't really see the point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to their respective series/films - their names are plausible search terms, and short 'biographies' of characters are generally included with series articles. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect where to? The series article, the movie article or a new article for such characters (like other shows have)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's really nothing to salvage for other articles. If redirected, I would say just redirect to Power Rangers and let interested editors redirect them to other articles as needed. TTN (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air India's fleet

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

WP:CFORK, details already in Air India#Fleet Sulaimandaud (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Air India#Fleet, plausible search term. Pratyush (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air India#Fleet, which has more content anyway. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 15:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt add any value and actually has less information then covered in the main Air India article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - our browser already goes to Air India. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air India#Fleet; a relatively plausible search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redirect seems unnecessary here; the phrasing is awkward and it would be to a substring. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my knowledge, there is nothing wrong with a redirect to a substring. Pratyush (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a redirect is unnecessary, as there are no incoming links. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The general consensus appears that the Forbes article alone isn't sufficient for notability, while an opinion that other sources support notability, it isn't shared by participants and the consensus is that the subject fails our notability requirements. —SpacemanSpiff 12:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Id fresh foods

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

promotional article, with one possibly acceptable ref, the Forbes India. The rest are the usual notices about funding that do not show notability . DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify/Keep Current article is promotional. But Forbes, and Hindu are god sources. The subject deserves an artcle. I say chop it down to 3-4 sentences or whatever the RS permits. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company and its products are very popular in South India. Edited out the content to get rid of the promotional tone. Theaphorist (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Forbes India, Mashable, and Quartz sources show notability to a wider audience than local news. Deccan Herald is a weaker source as it is local, but it's nontrivial coverage as well. The other sources seem to be promotional (e.g. ETtech) or press releases or routine coverage of registered businesses (e.g. Crunchbase), but the sources above seem to indicate non-local notability sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Promotional concerns can be fixed with editing; it doesn't seem to be a blow it up and start over case, and some editors have been working on editing for tone. Appable (talk | contributions) 16:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the company have not achieved anything significant yet, apart from raising $30M. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site, where it belongs. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met, nothing but routine stuff. Whenever I see a mention of a company's funding in a Wikipedia article, I switch off. Companies shouldn't pay people to write Wikipedia articles about them - they always turn out awful. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rude: Not appreciated. I'm the one who wrote the article. While even a non-wikian can comment about the work and content and it is totally accepted, implying someone is paid to write this article when they are the one who contributes their own personal time without any financial or commercial gain is insulting. Fundings are integral part integral part of coverage when the article is on startups, browse any startup article for that matter, majorityof the TechCrunch articles will disappear if the editor plans not to cover the funding news or announcements, they are made into news even by the most trusted media houses are for a reason. Theaphorist (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. It's an encyclopaedia. Do you really think that in ten years' time, someone is going to want to read about the amount of funding a company has? The only reason that companies add information about their funding to Wikipedia articles is to boost their profile. It has absolutely no encyclopaedic value. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially a spam article. Coverage is either routine or your typical PR business coverage that is frequently put out by marketing departments and published without much editorial oversight by the publisher. These don't get us to GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not by a PR or agency or by any companies department but by a fellow Wikian like you. A Google search will prove the relevance of the company. If it's about the tone of the article, why not someone volunteer to edit? Theaphorist (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TonyBallioni did not start editing last week, and his edits are not limited to creating 2-3 entries for minor companies. Those, however, are hallmarks of a PR-hack: an editor who is paid to put spam on Wikipedia, and after few weeks will discard this account to get a new one (WP:DUCK test). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One good source (Forbes India), all others are routine business coverage (rewritten press releases). Not enough to make it notable. At best, could consider userfy, maybe in few years they'll get a second good article or some awards or something. For now, WP:TOOSOON at best - your usual WP:CORPSPAM creation by a undisclosed paid editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: @TonyBallioni:: Deleted the funding section. Not just Forbes; Quartz, Mint and the citations are high quality (not sure about the Yahoo news one though). 'Encyclopedia' point makes sense, not with respect to Wikipedia though. Take any publicly listed company or startup articles in Wikipedia, most will carry financial information like Revenue, Profit/Loss etc (public company) and Funding information and investor info (for startups). Let's get into the WHY part of it. Businesses are the money making entities and its success is measured in terms of Revenue, Funding, Impact or Innovations they make. If you go by the Encyclopedia logic, no Encyclopedia will cover how much money a particular company is making or the box office collection of all movies, but Wikipedia does; maybe that's how known companies and brands are evaluated by the business world and popularity is judged by the public recognition. I also understand that none of the fellow wikians are adding a response with any personal benefits in mind and for the betterment of the Wikipedia and it's article itself. One should treat everyone with equal respect here, while anyone is allowed to share their opinion, personal or remarks about a contributor or his intentions are not welcomed. Let's wait and see the validity of "DUCK" remark, skipping the response now. My intention is not to get into name calling or personal attack here for an article which is not providing me any value other than my belief that it needs to exist. Theaphorist (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My above comment re: the sourcing was not about you or the article, but about its coverage in the press. It reads like your standard PR/marketing churn that are typical of business publications and where the editorial oversight could be slim. Coverage like this does not get us to GNG, even after the article has been cleaned up. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TonyBallioni: Got it. Thanks for explaining, appreciate it. Theaphorist (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At AfD, it isn't the condition of the ARTICLE that determines whether or not it is kept. What matters at AfD is the General Notability Guideline. If the subject of an article doesn't meet that guideline, the article cannot be kept, it's that straightforward. (Oh, and it's only one !vote per editor. You shouldn't be stating "Keep" more than once or you risk both of your votes being ignored by the person who closes the discussion). Exemplo347 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Edited to to keep one. Theaphorist (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:A7 by Randykitty. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnalucius

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

A Google search suggests that this band does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, fails WP:GNG as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - No claim of significance.- Mr X 22:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 22:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Warmoth

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

This sourcing is just not enough to sneak by, even with the draft approaching. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable college baseball player. I would not oppose recreating the article if he becomes a major leaguer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge As a 1st-round pick, he seems to have been getting more coverage recently. At the very least, instead of being deleted, this biography could be moved into Wikipedia's list of players in the Toronto Blue Jays organization. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 02:28, June 13, 2017 (UTC)
- Not if he doesn't sign. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added additional sourcing and "fleshed-out" the page a little. At least keep the page temporarily until he either signs with Toronto or passes. If he signs the page could be merged to the minor leaguers page as Canuckian suggested. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Given the expansion and further developments since I nominated this, I withdraw. It was still created WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted at the author's request. MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soneb Issi

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

A Google search for "Soneb Issi" returns no results. The article cites no sources and could be original research, or perhaps even a hoax. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Woman of Peace and User:Woman of Peace/Sonneb issi created by Woman of Peace (talk · contribs). Siuenti's first edit summary at Soneb Issi acknowledged the author, but a link is best per WP:CWW. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparent hoax. Highly implausible contents; alleged image is completely unrelated and randomly taken from other context. The alleged "reference", "Rje Bla Ma Tson-kha-pa Chen Poi No Mtshar Rmad Du Byun Bai Rnam Par Thar Pa Dad Pai Jug Nogs Zes Bya Bai Bzugs So by Mkhas-grub Dge-legs-dpal-bzan-po" may create the impression of being potentially legitimate (once you look past the first impression of total gibberish), as there apparently is an author by the name of "Mkhas-grub...po" [29], and there is a work by the title of Rie Bla ... So [30], but from what I can find out, author and title don't match (unless ancient Tibetan authors have name variants I don't understand, which is entirely possible), and there is no evidence why and how this ancient work would contain technical linguistic information of this sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a real book... but I can't read it. Seemed too good to be true. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 13:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Rice

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject JMHamo (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR. His roles in Trollied and Massive (TV series) are both significant and both series are bluelinked. He also has coverage in Shennan, Paddy (3 September 2013), "Boy from The White Stuff; Paddy Shennan talks to the actor who made his TV debut as a pint-sized Reds' fan", Liverpool Echo and Kendall, Paul (18 January 2009), "addendum whatever happened to... the boy from the milk advert", Sunday Telegraph Magazine 'Seven'. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was able to find one additional independent source for the subject, but outside of that and the few sources already provided, there isn't much coverage out there. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show that they pass WP:GNG, and while his role in Trollied certainly was significant, his supporting role in a very short-lived tv show, Massive, I don't feel warrants a significant enough role. Without that second role, he doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, which even if he did meet, only indicates that an actor may be notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where onel5969 gets the idea that a lead does not have a significant role in a tv series. If one of two main actors does not have a significant role then who does? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Twice relisted and nowhere near a consensus. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury yacht tender

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

Overly promotional, mostly unsourced, and probably not notable. Maybe some of this could be merged to Ship's tender. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or partial merge if anyone can be bothered editing it, but the content is, as mentioned, unsourced, and of questionable accuracy). Nothing to indicate this is a concept separate from Ship's tender or something that has received much specific coverage (multiple articles in mainstream publications specifically about luxury yacht tenders). It doesn't seem a likely search term ("yacht tender" might be but who'll search for this?). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Yacht tender. Agree the article needs better sourcing and cleanup. And no need for "luxury" in the title. But there is a lot of information specific to yachts, so I don't think merging into Ship's tender is a good plan. Quick searching finds things like [31] and [32]. AFD is not cleanup. MB 15:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ship's tender is all that's required. A line or two could be added there. We have an article on Watch, not on Luxury watch. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article Ship's tender has a list of about a dozen different kinds of tenders and each one is linked to a specific article. If yacht tender were discussed in that article, it would be the only one without a separate article. There is plenty of information available for a stand-alone article. MB 14:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional universe of Harry Potter

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

This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a good omnibus article and good to keep around to keep the book articles from drowning under too much detail. Artw (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How does that negate the fact that it is essentially a detailed fan site recap of every detail of the Harry Potter Universe? There is no reason for articles like this outside of actual Harry Potter wikis. Yours is a practical concern, perhaps, but that does not act as a logical reason to keep unwanted content. Harry Potter is a book series, and there is no need for several articles detailing every detail of it, as though it actually happened. There is no reason anyone would go to wikipedia to see what types of magical candies were featured in Harry Potter- they would go to the harry potter wiki, where this all belongs. There is a reason there are wikis for other topics-- because it doesn't belong on wikipedia! Artw Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia frequently covers aspects of fictional universes. Policy-wise what would your specific reason for deletion be? Artw (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Aspects" being the key word. WP:Plot WP:NOT#FANSITE. Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡
Without an actual policy based deletion rationale I'm not really seeing much point to continuing this. Artw (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I stated WP:Plot. Which falls under Deletion criteria 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Which, several massive articles directly reading off plot summaries would fall under.Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 02:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not appear to match your description of it. I'd say it falls well within WP:PLOT, discussing fictional elements in an enclopedic manner in the context of the real world books, and that it also conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation. Artw (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have removed the notices you added, since the problems they describe are not in evidence. Artw (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the HP universe being notable in its own right, articles like this are excellent places to merge other content that may be notable, but would be better covered in such an article. Nominator makes no argument that couldn't be solved via regular editing: WP:NOTCLEANUP. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is far too long to 'regularly edit'. Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 03:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all the other Potter-elements articles currently at AfD, per Jclemens and Artw, and per the 2010 discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter that closed with an overwhelming consensus to keep these articles. That old AfD contained thorough explanations of why the articles were appropriate. They still are. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was also 7 years ago.. and stating that something was kept x years ago or even x months ago is not a reason to continue keeping it. The status quo is not always correct. But whatever, I'm outnumbered. I guess these overwhelmingly unnecessary articles will continue to exist. Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 04:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per other arguments, additionally - the article is not "too long to 'regularly edit'" and a glance at the editing history shows that this is clearly not the case. I note that you've nominated several of the HP articles for deletion, all using the same copy & pasted rationale, which seems a bit like an "I don't like it" argument to me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that this can be reworked from a real world perspective. I wouldn't say that it would be impossible, but it needs more than the current keep arguments which are basically "it's useful". There is no inherent need for an article like this. People just think there is because that's how they have been used. This information can easily be managed by either culling it down to the point where it can fit in the main article or removing that which is not necessary to understand the series. Some people seem to think that Wikipedia must cover every minute facet of a series, when this article could probably be TNT'd without losing anything of importance. This is not Wikia. TTN (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provides useful coverage of the universe which does not belong in specific book articles, or would have to be repeated in more than one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The nomination here and for the related AfD's is an odd combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing that editing the article is somehow too hard. The edit history easily disproves the latter and the former is not a reason for nominating. In the absence of a good nomination, the article should be kept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In an article weighing at some 70kb, there are about 30 citations. Most of them are primary. Would someone like to evidence that the fictional universe is notable and that this list is appropriately weighted toward information established in reliable sources? Typically our articles on fictional content require just a few things: 1. Detailed creation and development information. 2. Themes present in the work. 3. Reception, critical (or not) of the work.. Where are these things? For a topic such as this particular one, I would expect all of these things to be present. Where is it? Flat out, this should be either a straight Delete or at the very least, a severe trimming. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I believe this article can be re-written and will become more useful as the Fantastic Beasts series starts to unfold, and with more content being available on Pottermore. We will have a common universe which expands outside of the Harry Potter novels, into movies and internet content and therefore does not wholly sit within the world of novels. MY SUGGESTION - would be to retitle this as JK Rowling's Wizarding World which is currently used only as a redirection page. This would provide a more correct title under which to start adding further Fantastic Beasts and Pottermore references-- Emmnich (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- how many Harry Potter plot summary articles do we really need? It's all the same stuff repackaged in 100 different ways and smeared all over dozens of different articles. Reyk _YO! 14:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some room for some mergers and reorganization. A mass AfD is not the way to do that though. Artw (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close – article already WP:CSD'ed under WP:G5 by Admin Bbb23. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Hazard

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

Article appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable teenage animator (WP:GNG/WP:SPIP). It also lacks reliable sources (WP:RS), most of the references appear to be either other self-submitted material by the subject or are exceedingly minor. GretLomborg (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article got my attention due to Hazard's Tapastic webcomic, which has no notability. Quickly checking Google results, it's surprising how little I get. "Preston Hazard" on Google News gives zero news results. No notability here, so delete. ~Mable (chat) 10:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article appears to be part of a self-promotion campaign that also includes the The Garbage Can Man Show (AfD). Both articles were created by the same user and reference each other. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Isaacian

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

no actual evidence of notability for this 'social media specialist" DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG nothing there to ascertain notability in his field of work to warrant an article. FITINDIA 04:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A passing mention such as "After receiving a tip from reader Moshe Isaacian" is not WP:RS coverage about the subject and I am not finding better. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trina Michaels

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

Nominations do not a pornbio worthy article make... Really can you call pornbio worthy. Non notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only passes WP:PORNBIO but also Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER, having been featured in mainstream media and is now associated with pro-wrestling. Miami Herald, GQ, Rant Sports. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- GNG and PORNBIO fail (no awards listed, only nominations). The above coverage are trivial mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although sources have been provided they're very poor and IMHO don't confirm notability, –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death at Victoria Dock

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

no evidence for meeting WP:BOOK. Perhaps an article on the series would be a good solution. In any case, thisuch discussion of plot is inappropriate, DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not much in Australian media from 1992 is online, but there a review in the Canberra Times here, and one in the Sydney Morning Herald (Cope, Stuart, "Tough Truths", Sydney Morning Herald, 10 July 1992, Spectrum, p.40 - it can been seen in Fairfax NewsStore but I don't know how to link to it properly here). Plus it probably passes the "considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement" criteria by being a basis of an episode of the TV show. Boneymau (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above reviews is a bunch more, some listed below. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davie, Ray (6 June 1992), "Crime", The Age

Carroll, J. R. (July 1992), "Guilt Edge", Australian Book Review

England, Katharine (30 May 1992), "Time is Right to Retire with a Detective Story", The Advertiser Magazine

Keep - according to AustLit, there are 9 works about this novel. NLA Trove may yield some more librarian-focused reviews. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Too High

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

no evidence for meeting WP:BOOK. Perhaps an article on the series would be a good solution. In any case, thisuch discussion of plot is inappropriate, DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below is some of the places this book has been reviewed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davie, Ray (2 January 1991), "Crime", The Age

Wallace-Crabbe, Robin (16–17 February 1991), "Shooting Straight at Heart of the Matter", The Weekend Australian

England, Katharine (8 December 1990), "Australian Private Eyes Arrive in Time for Christmas", The Advertiser Magazine

Knight, Stephen (22 December 1990), "Jovial Rogues, Men of Inaction and Excitable Gals", The Sydney Morning Herald

Kahllems, Philip (16 December 1990), "Historic Whodunnits", The Sunday Herald (Sunday Review)

Keep - in addition to the above, a NLA Trove search reveals some further reviews. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper, Ilene (2006-05-01), "Greenwood, Kerry. Flying Too High.(Brief article)(Book review)", Booklist, 102 (17), American Library Association: 22, ISSN 0006-7385

"Poisoned Pen Press.(To Thine Own Self Be True)(Cattery Row)(Flying Too High)(Brief article)(Book review)", California Bookwatch, Midwest Book Review, 2006-10-01 – via Gale

According to AustLit, (login needed) there are around 12 reviews available. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Meatsgains (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Way Airlines destinations

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

WP:LISTCRUFT Meatsgains (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I can see, longtime consensus says this is valid content for an airline article per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines) and a number of discussions over the years, including recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravn Alaska destinations. I'm not aware of anything that says the result would be different because this is a cargo airline. Whether the destination list and the main article are long enough to maintained this as a separate spinout article or to merge it back into the main Silk Way Airlines article could be discussed outside of AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these destination pages are pretty useful. I occasionally use them myself. They are often more clear than the airline's own website, and it is a significant thing for an airline to add or delete a destination. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Selection Committees of the Åke Blomström Award (ABA)

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

No indication that this prize for beginning journalists is notable enough for this to be an article, and it isn't even appropriate content for the main article, so there's no point in merging. I point out there is no article on the prize in the svWP. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the names are notable. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ajf773 (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Manxruler (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These committees are just not covered by independent reliable sources. There is no claim to notability for this list. --Bejnar (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will move edit history to a draft upon request. czar 06:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Wagner

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NGOLF; likely WP:TOOSOON Melcous (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-ify - WP:TOOSOON, but this may change in the next month or two. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)+[reply]
Delete fails WP:NGOLF....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, fails WP:NGOLF - GretLomborg (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:TOOSOON. Suggest userfication in creator's space so that if she does start winning majors, the creator doesn't have to redo all their existing work. Montanabw^(talk) 23:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JR (singer)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Non reliable and trivial mentions in non independent sources. No reliable and independent sources are found about this newbie. No notable awards etc. The article is also very promotional and contains huge number of external links to his YouTube channel. Mar11 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources exist. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All the external link are removed. Cpcam065099 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Cpcam065099 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete - sources exist but most are Allkpop/Soompi considered unreliable WP:KO/RS - other references are trivial mentions of the group and give no weight to notability as an individual.Evaders99 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I has changed the source to be reliable. Please tell me if there still have some problems.Cpcam065099 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent notability except for NU'EST and Produce 101. Tibbydibby (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Min-hyun

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Non reliable and trivial mentions in non independent sources. No reliable and independent sources are found about this newbie. No notable awards etc. The article is also very promotional and contains huge number of external links to his YouTube channel. Mar11 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources exist. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All the external link are removed. Cpcam065099 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Cpcam065099 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Weak Keep I assume the sources provided meet the needs of GNG/MUSICBIO. I'm not an expert on this subject. If those outlets are reputable for coverage of this subject, then I think it's a solid keep. South Nashua (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources exist but most are Allkpop/Soompi considered unreliable WP:KO/RS - other references are trivial mentions of the group and give no weight to notability as an individual.Evaders99 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I has changed the sources(in Korean) to be reliable and 6 of them mentioned Minhyun(민현) in the title which show he is the focus on the news and has notability as an individual..Cpcam065099 (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NU'EST – seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO, he doesnt have solo musical releases outside of group, and participating in Produce 101 doesnt make contestants notable, obviously. It cant pass WP:GNG as an actor either since both appearances in "Filmography" section seems to be cameo appearances in single episodes, he need to have at least a couple of main roles to count as an actor. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:MUSICBIO, Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Firstly, I think he pass the above criteria. Although some of the news I listed wrote him as NU'EST's Minhyun but I think this is become there are many people has the same name in Korean. It is more concrete to describe him and he is the focus of the news. Therefore, he Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. I had looked other kpop artist article that only has 5-6 sources so I guess it is acceptable in this amount. The sources I listed is over this number. After he started participating in Produce 101, he become more notable and more news mention him. I add those news as source but User:Snowflake91 say "produce 101 section is too detailed compared to other sections" and delete it. Besides, he play the main role in Reckless Family and Their Distance instead of cameo appearances in single episodes.Cpcam065099 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link where he is mentioned in a sources, which are not just trivial, short routine reports of NU'EST / Produce 101 activities? Something like this (click) ? Snowflake91 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the article and explain what I did wrong. I think we have different understanding of trivial source. For me, if sources describe the subject(Minhyun) as major part, it is non-trivial. Can you tell me where request long routine reports to help me understand its criteria? I cant get what you want or can you give example of Jung Chae-yeon who has similar situation to Minhyun.Cpcam065099 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I added the sources for acting career; he probably passes the notability there since he has two main roles in what appears to be notable film / sitcom, but on notability criterias, it is stated --> "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", so what exactly is "multiple" in this criterias? Two films, three films, ten films? Snowflake91 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Snowflake91: I also want to add that his ranking in Produce 101 helps with his notability, and to add, he is a member of Wanna One. Tibbydibby (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baekho (singer)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Non reliable and trivial mentions in non independent sources. No reliable and independent sources are found about this newbie. No notable awards etc. The article is also very promotional and contains huge number of external links to his YouTube channel. Mar11 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources exist. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All the external link are removed. Cpcam065099 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Cpcam065099 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete - sources exist but most are Allkpop/Soompi considered unreliable WP:KO/RS - other references are trivial mentions of the group and give no weight to notability as an individual.Evaders99 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I had removed all unreliable sources. Does it still have another problems?Cpcam065099 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – a notable singer in South Korea. Article is long enough and contains multiple reliable sources. Simon (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry guys, but Yoo Yeon-jung is more notable than him. He doesn't really have any solo notability outside of NU'EST and Produce 101. At least Yeonjung has some solo releases as collaborations. Tibbydibby (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ren (singer)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Non reliable and trivial mentions in non independent sources. No reliable and independent sources are found about this newbie. No notable awards etc. The article is also very promotional and contains huge number of external links to his YouTube channel. Mar11 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources exist. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All the external link are removed. Cpcam065099 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Cpcam065099 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete - nearly all sources are Allkpop/Soompi considered unreliable WP:KO/RS - other references are trivial mentions of the group and give no weight to notability as an individual. Evaders99 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I had removed all unreliable sources. Does it still have another problems?Cpcam065099 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Nothing outside of Produce 101/NU'EST. In addition, he is not as notable as Cosmic Girls' Yeonjung. Tibbydibby (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Educational Trust

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear notability. Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; five seconds on Google should have been enough to see that this is a significant and long-standing organization who (among other things) quite literally wrote the book on Islam in British schools. ‑ Iridescent 08:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single book does not make an organisation notable. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MET is central in debates in England over education of young Muslims, especially through the activity of Hewitt and Sarwar and particularly in the 1970s-1990s. I've added some material about this. The Trust is almost always discussed in news articles as the organization which an individual represents, with the individual receiving more in depth discussion, but the consistency and import of the organization's role leads me to believe they are notable. In particular, WP:GNG notes that coverage is significant if it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This is clearly the case, even if no indepth article about the organization is cited. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements. Adequately referenced and I believe that the sources demonstrate notability at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MMA organizations

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

This "article" that has no aspects of article is an ugly mix of concoction of semi-notable lists. The listing of 50 TOP ... is subjective and seems to be more an compilation of passing editors. If any parts are worth saving then maybe they can be extracted, however, in its current form it is not an encyclopaedic article or a reasonable list. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article appears to be just a large directory of non notable list topics and entries. Not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of residential buildings in India

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a useful list -- the possible contents here are so impossibly broad (every residential building in a country with a population of over a billion?!?) that the list is literally unmaintainable. Even if we impose the "article must already exist" restriction that we have the option of imposing on open-ended lists that are too prone to collecting non-notable entries, this would still be exceedingly difficult to effectively maintain -- even lists that do have that restriction in place still end up having to be monitored for the self-promotional addition of non-notable entries whose names are redlinked or unlinked or offlinked to their own websites. There's just no point in holding onto a list like this, where the drawbacks and potential problems so outweigh the benefits. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE.Ajf773 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid or substantive argument for deletion presented, and this easily passes WP:LISTPURP as index of articles and WP:CLN as complementary index to Category:Residential buildings in India. The nominator's argument is nothing more than WP:SUSCEPTIBLE, a poor argument in general, and one that is especially ridiculous here where this list hasn't had a single edit since it was last kept by my close of the first AFD in December, let alone a problematic one.[33] We don't delete just because something requires "maintenance", and we certainly don't delete where there is not even a record of maintenance (or of any talk page usage, still true here as it was at the first AFD), but instead just speculation about "drawbacks and potential problems". And not that we need go into any further benefits, but the list also has plenty of room for development, to make it sortable for example, and annotate it. postdlf (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and I believe that Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value. Residential buildings in India leads to a broad scope. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The list has the exact same scope as the category, which has numerous subcategories. As the nominator of this very AFD has elsewhere said, one benefit a list can provide is to present all the entries of a parent category on one page, "providing a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories instead of directly containing all of its potential entries." The list can always be subdivided by header to sort its contents, or even split into sublists if there are enough entries to merit it. And as noted above and at the previous AFD, there has been zero talk page discussion about focusing inclusion or content subdivision on this list, so that effort has not even been made yet. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are at least a few thousand named residential buildings in each of the Metro cities. Add to this the many hundreds in smaller cities, big towns and then more in other places - and we have a humongous list which will, in my humble opinion, never be even one hundredth of a one-stop-shopping location. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This, like most lists on Wikipedia, are only for entries that have articles. postdlf (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete-Too broad to be maintainable.And may I suggest the closer of the last AfD to kindly refrain from a hyper-active participation in this AfD?Winged Blades^Godric 13:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous, this could be a list of hundreds of thousands of buildings. That's what we have categories for. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Already relisted twice with only two opposing votes. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Christopher

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

Non notable musician. Lacks notability independent of the reality show that he is a supporting cast member of. Outside of the show he lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claimed Charts are bad charts. Claim of first is dubious and unsourced. Note Forbes is from a contributor, not staff. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Baldly promotional in tone and origin. Non-notable per nom. --Lockley (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage comes from the New York Post ([34]), Us Weekly ([35]), Los Angeles Times ([36]), Bustle ([37]), Vibe ([38]), Out ([39]), Bossip ([40]), The Christian Post ([41]). Has been interviewed on The Breakfast Club, The Wendy Williams Show, Ebro in the Morning etc. --Eurofan88 (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Adhikari

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

A previous ProD tag was removed on May 29th. The article has no refs since then. Subject fails WP:NACTOR. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prod really should not have been removed if no sources were added. Nothing shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hall (Bahá'í)

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

This is a Biography of a Living Person and must pass a higher degree of quality. Per WP:Notability it does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This individual's notability stems from being a member of the Universal House of Justice, which is the highest elected institution of the Baha'i Faith. The members do not hold individual authority, but decisions by the majority carry authority. So far, just being a member has not resulted in significant coverage outside of a few announcement by the Baha'i news service. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there aren't many journal, just three basic mentions in newspaper about being elected to the House, or academic books mentioning him. I found a trivial mention of him encouraging someone who wrote a thesis: Melanie Lotfali (18 September 2013). Engaging East Timorese Men in the Process of Establishing Gender Equality: Doctorate of Philosophy Thesis - University of New England - 2006. p. 8. GGKEY:WQU0YX494E2. And that was after weeding out some false positives of a church. I can't verify anything else. Seems like a clear call to delete the article to me. Smkolins (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep-ish The only thing I have been able to additionally find is Deseret News which is an LDS RS, clearly independent of the subject, but just mentions him rather than going into any detail. I suspect, however that his position may render him default notable per WP:CLERGY, even though we may have little verifiable to say about him. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This position is at least equivalent to a Christian bishop and thus meets WP:CLERGY. Sourcing is minimal but present. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i believe his high status within Bahaism warrants a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.134.177 (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fairly strong consensus that this is a BLP1E situation. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Nip

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

BLP1E violation; this was a declined prod. "Chess" is not listed on NSPORT, but "grandmaster" would be the inherently-notable title, not "master". Power~enwiki (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is misinterpreting WP:BLP1E, which is meant for low-profile individuals caught up in a single news story. It does not apply to the career of a chess master, however brief it is. Notability is not temporary, and becoming the youngest ever US chess master is a notable achievement which was covered at the time in reliable sources like The New York Times.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable chess player. This is a good example of why the United States National Master title is held in low esteem in the wider chess world. The way he got the title looks highly suspicious, it looks like it was a setup for bragging rights by his coach and parents, and soon afterwards he appears to have lost interest in the game. Coverage in NYT was in their chess column, not in their main news pages. He is indeed notable only for a single event, and it's a dubious claim at that. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E does apply. It was a child who was in the spotlight for breaking a record and does not appear to have played since. We have no reason to believe he sought the spotlight (independently from his parents, coach, or whoever else) and thus -- again, as a child -- should be considered a low-profile individual. There's the record, but a big part of what's notable about it is the controversy. That raises WP:BLP issues, since it's not just one event, but it was a controversial event. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is notable for something extraordinary. I agree that whether he is a dedicated chess player, and whether he really is that good, are in question, but it's not our job to answer those questions really. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Academic_Chess#Nicholas Nip. I agree with the BIO1E assessment; the subject became the youngest to achieve the distinction, but has not played since, so he is only notable for that one thing. Nip is strongly associated with Academic Chess and is discussed in the article. I think it would be a reasonable target. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: I don't know if a redirect makes sense in this case. The only source that ties Nip to that subject is one personal blog post (there's another source supporting his achievement, but it doesn't mention Academic Chess). Most of that section wasn't even about Nip (I've changed the heading to be about students). It seems like if we didn't have an article on Nip, extended content in the Academic Chess article based just on that personal blog post would be undue IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, actually I can't say whether that first source about Nip mentions Academic Chess. I had searched for it, but didn't realize that the link seems to be broken (and not archived), so it may have mentioned the connection. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete then, per WP:BIO1E. The event (becoming the youngest master) is not significant enough to warrant an article in the absence of any other accomplishments. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per wp:BLP1E. While notability is not temporary, that appears to be one of the reasons why the BLP1E rules were put in place. To take care of folks who get a bit of coverage for a single thing, and then drop out of the public eye. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Comin

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

Doesn't appear to meet any of the notability criteria for academics, or for people more broadly, or the general notability guideline. There is some coverage in secondary sources, but the vast majority of instances are passing mentions rather than substantial discussions of his research. (This is one of several articles about Dartmouth economists created recently by an editor who appears to have a connection to the department; this is, however, the only one which strikes me as almost certainly non-notable.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 26. For the statistically challenged, would 3700 citations by the work of others be more understandable? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Xxanthippe's analysis of the scholarly impact in this field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 19:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Waterman

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

Cannot find any reliable sources of information for this person. Homechallenge55 (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - within a certain subsection of the community (professional actresses, as well as fans of films and TV shows that she's been in), she is notable enough that people would use her as a reference point. She has been in 26 productions according to IMDB, which includes several A-list productions. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was notable in her era, which meets WP:NTEMP. Unfortunately that was pop culture before the web was very established. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is AfD—let's see those sources czar 04:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant TV and film career, with plenty of sources confirming roles in GBooks. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 his sports record warrants keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scandolera

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

Lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See WP:NBADMINTON. Satisfies criterion 1: Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships. Florentyna (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was the Commonwealth Games gold medalists. Stvbastian (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NSPORTS says that "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". I felt sure this person would have something written about them given their medal hauls, but a search on Factiva and in Trove Newspapers didn't turn up much. Lots of brief mentions and score reports, but nothing substantial that was actually about him. I do not believe he would meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Mike Scandolera is a three-time Commonwealth Games (CWG) medalist along with being the first Australian badminton player to win gold medal in these games. The Euroa Gazette's article – Scandolera pays a visit to impart his knowledge of big time – gives details of his career and the three CWG medals. And The Canberra Times's article under the title First gold in badminton confirms him being the first Australian CWG gold medalist in badminton. There are couple of other relevant sources at the article already. Now, Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Sports_personalities states that an "athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor....". And he has done both, as CWG is a major event. So, he clearly satisfies the WP:NSPORT. He also easily satisfies WP:NBADMINTON. I agree that finding online sources for a 1980s sportsperson won't be easy, but there are enough sources here to prove his notability.

P.S. You can also search his record at the official website of the Commonwealth Games Federation: First click here, then click on ATHLETE SEARCH & type scandolera in the Name field. This will show his name – Michael George Scandolera – & clicking on it will show his details of CWG medals/participation. You will find that he had represented Australia in three CWGs & participated in twelve events along with winning three medals. It also shows that he was Australia's one of the top badminton players for at least around one decade. And for that to happen, he must've played in numerous international events, which should be enough to meet GNG. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See WP:NBADMINTON. As addition, he fulfills all there stated criteria except 4 (this series did not exist in this time).

Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships,
Competed in the quarter finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships (e.g. Continental Championships, BWF Super Series or Commonwealth Games) in teams or singles or doubles competitions.
Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g. Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International, here Australia Open 1994).
Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics. Florentyna (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiably a world class badminton player, with sufficient sourcing for a short article. --Michig (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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