Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 June	22 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 redirect to Anita Dongre. A quick explanation. Based on numbers, there was one keep, two deletes, and including the nom's original intentions, three redirects. But numbers not being everything, the policy objections placed fell gently in the general direction of redirection. The keep was, unfortunately, although re-emphasised, based on a fundamental misundersatnding of the purpose of an online encyclopaedia. One delete was based firmly and convincingly on policy; the other based on the (promotional) tone of the article. To this, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP may be seen to apply. Finally, the three !votes for redirect presented the cleanest and, per WP:ATD, most logical result. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Dongre[edit]

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

Typical promotional work.Tried to redirect to Anita Dongre which was repeatedly reverted.Most of the sources contain no mention/trivial mention of the subject.Lone pseudo-importance seems to be that he is set to speak at UN Young Changemakers Conclave--a non-notable initiative of United Nations Information Centre for India and Bhutan. Winged Blades^Godric 15:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 15:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 15:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 15:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to mention that this article is about an entrepreneur who is heading HOAD, the brand who's clothes are being worn by the Royal Duchess and major celebrities, the page is in compliance with all the policies laid out by wikipedia. The article was created with notable sources, and shows the exact figure of the subject, I recommend that this article should stay at wikipedia as the person is notable, however as you have mentioned, that he only spoke at UN, that's not true, through his philanthropy he has changed 5000 lives. What I would recommed that for the time being let's add this article to the category of a Wikipedia:Stub , therefore people would be able to add more things to the article.

https://www.outlookbusiness.com/specials/outstanding-women/empress-of-prt-3076 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shailaggarwal (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by working for one's mother's company, nor from the clients who purchase goods from that company. Nor do the other activities listed in the article indicate distinct biographical notability. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Referring to the article:

Where Notability is inherited:- " Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG" WP:GNG Pass "Significant coverage" : The subject in the article has significant coverage in the news articles "Reliable" & "Sources" : The sources are from known media house. "Independent of the subject" : The article does not include any links from the subject's website. "Presumed" : The subject is notable by blood and the also designation which he holds in the company (for example: There a page for Sundar Pichai, CEO google)

I have made my case for retaining this article, I hope I have justified that I was in compliance with all the points laid out by the wikipedia and therefore this page must be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shailaggarwal (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is ridiculously self promotional piece on Wikipedia, even go through Media coverage, nothing profound is found. Light2021 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anita Dongre. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All the current sources in the article are just mentions of him being Anita Dongre's son and being a part of her business; he is not notable on his own and notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anita Dongre: All the media attention he has received is because of his work for his mother's company. Sources don't discuss him in detail. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:30, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in Harry Potter[edit]

(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) 16:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Fictional universe of Harry Potter. Artw (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources demonstrated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the article remains in its current state. First glance, I actually think this could have potential, but it would need a good dose of TNT. I've never read the series or seen the movies, but the cultural impact of the series leaves me to believe that this topic could be redone from a real world perspective. I don't know if it's actually possible, but if someone shows the initiative, I would certainly change my opinion. As it stand, the article is Wikia-tier at best, and I doubt any of this content needs to exist. TTN (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that policy (WP:DEL-CONTENT) explicitly opposes this rationale, right? Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's not. My gut instinct that it could be redone does not change that the current state of the article is unacceptable and that nobody has shown any inclination that it can actually be improved. As it stands right now, it should be deleted, unless someone shows proper sources or method of framing it from a real world perspective. The burden of proof is on those who want to keep it. It's just the problem is that popular series have this catch 22 where everyone votes to keep but they're never improved because they usually cannot be improved. This article will probably sit here for another ten years unless a wikiproject properly guts it like they did the Pokemon articles. TTN (talk) 21:59, 20 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) 13:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or it's an ordinary combination of WP:extensiveplotsummariesdonotbelongonthissite. But I understand that many users have a WP:COI when it comes to Harry Potter ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 22:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of casting aspersions at other editor's motivations, may it not be more useful to actually, oh, I don't know, try to put forth a policy-compliant deletion nomination? 1,778 unique editors have edited this article, which is an enormous silent existing consensus. In order for this AfD nomination to succeed, you need to build a new consensus. You haven't done that, and the reasons you state for needing to build a new one are (as yet) trivial and personal. (By the way, search and search the COI policy all you want, nowhere will you find "Likes Harry Potter" as an actual COI.) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does a lot of people editing an article make it a good article? Since when does a lot of people editing an article make it comply with WP policy? Since when is looking up the list of unique editors relevant? Especially since one of them is me. And I think COI includes people who have strong feelings about a topic and let that blur their opinions, in this case blur their judgement on whether a massive bulk of plot summary is notable or worthy of being on WP. But I'm sure you're right anyway. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 23:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what COI means. Artw (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic is likely notable (Daniel Mitchell (1 December 2007). The Magic of Harry Potter. Lulu.com. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-0-615-17282-8.) but the current article is 99% fancruft that needs WP:TNTing. Meh. It could be rewritten, so I guess there's not need to blow it up... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Fictional universe of Harry Potter - HP has enough mainstream flow on effect and interest to justify this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm agnostic on the question of Harry Potter. This seems to be a specialized theme of broad interest and subject of at least some independent inquiry counting towards GNG. Crufty in its excessive detail, but that is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 24 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) 16:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of spells in Harry Potter[edit]

(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) 20:27, 14 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) 22:09, 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]
Delete - While Magic in Harry Potter could potentially be reworked if sources exist, this will never be anything but a Wikia-tier plot dump. As a companion article, this holds no purpose. There is no particular reason anyone should be looking for spells in context with plot summaries. The plot summaries should detail the purpose of the spell, if it is deemed important enough for the summary. If there are any that are truly iconic, they should be mentioned in the main article, or "Magic in Harry Potter" should that be reworked. TTN (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is mostly the same plot summary already covered in a dozen other "XYZ in Harry Potter" articles. How often, and in how many different ways, must we cover the same plot dump? Reyk _YO! 07:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Evanesco. A general discussion of HP magic is fine, but not every instance of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the above delete votes and the nominator on that this does not have notability outside of the series itself. This appears to be more appropriate to the Harry Potter wikia than Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cool but unencyclopedic. Magic in HPU can be discussed for its influences, significance, etc. List of spells is pure fancruft. And this is better done on Harry Potter wikia - http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Spell and many others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Breaks my heart to do this, I'm a big Harry Potter fan, but you can really only justify so many HP pages on wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk)
Delete - Unencyclopedic trivia. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 24 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Suhor[edit]

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

Essentially advocacy, as shown by the emphasis on his POV, and the extraordinarily inappropriate non-encyclopedic detail. Possibly a NPOV article can be written, but the first step is removing this. I say this just the same as I would say for commercial advertising. This should not be taken to indicate that I disagree or agree with the contributors POV, or the subject's POV--I would say the same in either case. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DGG has really said it all: like so many articles created by the same editor, this one is clearly written to impress the reader with a point of view. The article is so long and detailed, and the promotional tone is so deeply embedded into it, that editing the promotion out is not a realistic proposition, so as DGG suggests, the only thing to do is scrap it, and it may or may not be that someone can then write a neutral article on the same subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's possibly sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. But the coverage is that he is a gadfly, who generates press coverage merely for protesting; having this much detail on him is WP:UNDUE. A speech before the Escambia Board of County Commissioners needs far more than local coverage and atheist trade-press coverage to become notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree to above Light2021 (talk) 20:26, 28 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 Flanaess. Flanaess, as the parent topic, is the clear choice for a redirect target. If material on Wolf Nomads there is removed in the future, the redirect can be taken to RFD as needed. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Nomads[edit]

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

This topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my mind, I don't actually support merging this to Flanaess. It should be deleted, and Gran March, Pomarj, Geoff (Greyhawk), and Highfolk should be deleted as well. I'm starting a discussion on Flanaess for reductions on that page. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless third-party sources are forthcoming. I've no particular opposition to a merge or a redirect if someone believes it useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Flanaess. Ran a search on Wolf Nomads...just a fictional aspect of the D&D universe (the GreyHawke setting). No logic for it to have its own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M: no argument that this content has any other deficiency than simple non-notability has been advanced, making the delete arguments non-policy-based: deletion on the basis of non-notability is only for when no suitable merge target exists, which is not the case here. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and Jclemens. Borderlandor (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support a consensus redirect to Flanaess. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge if a suitable target can be identified. No evidence of decent third-party coverage. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:42, 25 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 Flanaess. The parent article is a natural redirect target for this. How much content is to be merged is left to editor discretion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Urnst[edit]

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

This topic does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I recommend this AfD be combined with the Wolf Nomads one. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless third-party sources are forthcoming. I've no particular opposition to a merge or a redirect if someone believes it useful. @Power~enwiki: These D&D nominations have traditionally been fairly controversial; a one-at-a-time approach does seem to work well, even if it can be a little slower than some of us might like. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M: no argument that this content has any other deficiency than simple non-notability has been advanced, making the delete arguments non-policy-based: deletion on the basis of non-notability is only for when no suitable merge target exists, which is not the case here. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Flanaess. Deleting this article would mean Wikipedia would have no information on the subject matter, despite linking to this page multiple times on Flanaess. Frankly, I've found Wikipedia's content on the geography of the worlds of Dungeons and Dragons to be fairly lacking as is. Borderlandor (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want full coverage of the geography of the worlds of Dungeons and Dragons, you should buy the original source books. The material should not be present in an encyclopedia in anywhere near this level of detail. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking third-party coverage, or a very selective merge if a suitable target can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:43, 25 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. Deleted by Ad Orientem per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental Conservation Right. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 07:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Property Right[edit]

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

This is one of two articles (along with Environmental Conservation 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 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A10. recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, since this article is, except for title, exactly the same as Environmental Conservation Right. I suggest a speedy delete for this one and that all comments be made at the Afd for Environmental Conservation Right. --Bejnar (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Environmental Conservation Right It seems to be a viable redirect (the articles are identical) so it should be redirected rather than deleted. If the target article is deleted at AFD then the redirect goes with it. Meters (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 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 The Hill School. For attribution purposes, given that a merger was performed Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of The Hill School[edit]

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

This is not notable enough a school for it to have individual history page, per WP:GNG 1 and 4. Reasons cited for this page existing include that if it were not to exist, the main article would be too long; however, formatting difficulties and problems do not justify excessive page splintering. I suggest merging the article with The Hill School, and cropping out any unnecessary, non-notable, and flowery details that may render its length superfluous. The fact that the school became coeducational, and the fact that it has a summer school do not explain the necessity of this article's existence. I also suggest deleting the template page for the Hill School. Peapod21 (talk) 23:08, June 21, 2017

Smerge (Selectively merge) to the main article about the school. As a a legitimate secondary school of long standing, the institution is clearly notable, but fans have created a number of articles about aspects of the school which serve no encyclopedic purpose: There are also Hill School Blues, Campus of The Hill School, and List of headmasters of The Hill School, all heavily sourced to the school's own publications. The main article is already tagged for containing "an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience." Its daughter articles are spammy and promotional. Would that smerging make the main article too long? Then delete the silly sections in the main article about languages taught, which include notes that some languages are not taught: "Russian:Russian is no longer available. German:German is no longer available." Make it read like an encyclopedia article about a school rather than a promotional brochure to mail to potential applicants. Edison (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of History of The Hill School and Campus of The Hill School have been merged with the main article. Without further objections, I believe this article and perhaps the latter one mentioned are ready for deletion.(talk) 03:36, June 22, 2017

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peapod21 (talk • contribs)

Delete The content is superfluous (most of it not using reliable sources) and the subject isn't notable. Editors are advised to follow WP:SPINOUT when attempting this sort of thing. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomw. This is not notable enough a school to have its own history page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and delete. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 28 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. Given that it's apparently been cancelled, the consensus is to delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 state visit of the United States to the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Two separate reasons for nomination. First, this is speculation, and the recent speculation is that this won't occur, at least not in 2017. Second, state visits are WP:MILL and don't all need to be covered in this way. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:CRYSTAL. There is no guarantee that this event will happen. Peapod21 (talk) 23:16
Delete I agree that this visit is WP:MILL nothing out-of-theordinary or exceptionally notable regarding this potential visit. Comatmebro (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was a legit article while a date was penciled in on the calendar, but given that visit was left out of the Queen's speech a couple of days ago, it seems increasingly unlikely it will happen now. If the UK government really wanted it, a date would have been set by now (the invitation was given five months ago) and I think following the poor election result Prime Minister May is anxious not to do anything which will attract more criticism of her admin. And Trump has suggested that he doesn't really want to go either. This is now firmly an article about something that probably won't happen! Cpaaoi (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it had happened, it would probably have fallen foul of WP:NOTNEWS unless something special had happened during the visit. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per MILL, CRYSTAL, and NOTNEWS. I think it's a destructive impulse to go to Wikipedia any time there's a mention of anything online, as if Wikipedia was a hobby website for people that like to write summaries. I support a 30 year moratorium on articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:CRYSTAL.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as per WP:CRYSTAL. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 04:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:HAMMER. For the record, I do not agree that state visits are run of the mill; in fact, they can be historic and need to be considered one by one. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margie Omero[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with some overtones of being a prosified résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, about a person notable primarily as a founder of a polling firm. As always, our notability rules do not extend an automatic presumption of notability to every founder of every company -- we require reliable source coverage about her to demonstrate that she passes WP:GNG for that work. But the referencing here consists of two primary sources, one short blurb in an industry trade magazine, one even shorter blurbette that's about her company being acquired by another one and not in any meaningful way about her qua her, one post to a non-notable and non-neutral blog, and her entirely routine wedding announcement in The New York Times. Exactly none of this is the kind of "coverage" that it takes to demonstrate notability for the purposes of earning a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant coverage on the subject in independent reliable sources. While there is a good amount about the company she runs, the company is not the subject of this article. Comatmebro (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would vote to retain because of her frequent appearance as political interview 'in the current political climate' (as a Republican pollster?) - not because she 'founded a company. One can look at what is said (and make a judgment), but look also at what is not said (in comments to vote one way or another). MaynardClark (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough reliable source media coverage about her to support one. Doing some talking head on the news can assist notability if reliable sources are writing content about those appearances — but it does not assist notability if you're merely using the existence of the appearances as metasourcing for themselves. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is not in an important enough role to support a redirect to Penn Schoen Berland . If she's notable as a result of media appearances (on Sunday morning talk shows, etc.) the entire article needs to be re-created to reflect that. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Then recreate the entire article to reflect that preference or priority (appearing on TV political talk shows). MaynardClark (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck User:MaynardClark's duplicate vote, and note that he is the primary author of this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definite blatant self promotional Light2021 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I take this back as an article under creation and Wikify it. Surely we don't want a violation, and I would like to explore whether or not - and how - to construct an article here which is helpful - and NOT promotional. I have no interest in her career as such, nor in her politics, nor in promoting her as an individual. There seem to be quite a few such persons who were 'taken into' government in ways that different sorts of individuals were previously placed. But I cannot find time to work on that until later this week. MaynardClark (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: a WP:BEFORE indicates passing mentions, and regurgitating a single PR-puff-piece, lacking depth and peristence of coverage in reliable sources, so failing WP:ANYBIO. — fortunavelut luna 13:58, 29 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. Unanimous, with the exception of two anonymous comments which fail to cite any policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaya Younan[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, WP:N and subsequently WP:BIO Loopy30 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source provided leads to a "404 error not found." Comatmebro (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came to fix a typo, stayed to try and salvage lack of refs, and couldn't find any. The subject is the CEO of Younan Properties but should not inherit notability from that. Loopy30 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been able to delete the sources that no longer exist and the information involving them, and have found relevant sources for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.248.101.146 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems that all necessary relevant sources have been added. The article is now accurate and has the correct references for the information present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.117.88 (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one from the picture to writing to references nothing but a personal self promotion. wikipedia is not for building publike profile like such.Light2021 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN / WP:NOTYELLOW. — fortunavelut luna 14:00, 29 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niezam Zaidi[edit]

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Single reference is from a source of dubious reliability. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no sign of notability in the article. [1] is the best reference I found and is not sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems the creator has many other new page and file copyright issues. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing is there to even discuss! Light2021 (talk) 20:31, 28 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. So Why 20:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Shantz (author)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article topic (Canadian sociologist, criminology) lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Books aren't widely held/cited, so doesn't pass scholar notability guideline. Secondarily, the current draft reads like a CV and was written by a single-purpose account (if a COI, undisclosed). There are no suitable redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) reliable sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 22:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Prolific writer, but work has garnered almost no attention. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Do Not Delete.. This author has substantial worldcat holdings, 8,242 holdings, far more than many others in the field with entries. Also google scholar shows significant citations over multiple publications. In addition are contributions to movement publications and community use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.253.123 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC) — 162.245.253.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GS h-index of 8 not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

GS h-index is actually 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.253.123 (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not on my counting, but even if it were, it would not be enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks to the new link to GS I now make it 10. Still not enough WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Do not delete. That this entry is being discussed as solely academic is improper. The person has made substantial contributions to several social movements, including environmental politics, rank and file labor movements, and anarchism, and is noted on that basis. He coined the term green syndicalism which has been debated in environmental and other movements. This alone would recommend the entry. Other issues widely discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.123.188 (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC) — 154.5.123.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

is noted on that basis

Then it should be easy to provide reliable, secondary sources that confirm your claim. Also these two comments are from Vancouver IPs—if you have an affiliation with Shantz, you need to declare it czar 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that subject is prolific, but a quick sampling of WorldCat shows his print books, e.g. Cyber Disobedience, Living Anarchy, Radical Ecology, etc. to have only double-digit holdings, at best. Article claims he is the editor of a journal called Radical Criminology, but no journal matching that name is indexed in any of the main databases, and it seems to have published only 6 issues in its entire history. Sources are completely inadequate. Article is basically a CV and has lots of OR, raising COI questions. He is at one of Canada's "polys", basically a combination of an undergrad institution and a vocational school..not that this matters, but it's not a bastion of deep graduate thought in social issues, which is the article's claim for notability. This appears to be a case of a person working very hard as a professor, but whose many works have not been noted by the academic world. Agricola44 (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search in JSTOR turned up a single, co-authored article and 2 book reviews, fewer than most scholars have before they finish the PhD. Checked his 2015 book Specters of Anarchy: Literature and the Anarchist Imagination, published by house I have never heard of, http://www.algora.com Website seems to indicate that this is self-publishing, at least, the author sets up a Word file and arranges his own manuscript for publication. Decided to check another book, Cyber Disobedience (2014) Zero Books is a an "automated" publisher that "partners" with its authors - in other words, self-publishing. Searching "Jeff Shantz" + anarchy produced nothing. No notability whatsoever. Kudos to editor who noticed this longstanding WP:ADVERT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this illuminating investigation. The possibility exists that the BLP is a hoax, constructed by an enemy of the subject with the intent to discredit him. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I wouldn't go that far—his pubs are just in smaller journals that aren't indexed by JSTOR (some are Wiley, Sage, Palgrave Macmillan, others are open access/no publisher). And some pubs are under "Jeffrey/Jeffery". But even in considering his other capacity as an activist, there still isn't much written about him and his work, nevertheless enough to do justice to the topic in an encyclopedia article. czar 04:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is, at the very least, listed in the Kwantlen directory, so a person of this name does exist. But the fact that many of his books are self-published and perhaps his journal is, as well (the link to "Punctum Books" is broken), is pretty conclusive for an academic. Agricola44 (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the prolific arguments presented over a prolific author: I agree that regardless of the number of texts- rather like this AFD- the quality, in terms of general breadth of notability, is lacking. — fortunavelut luna 14:03, 29 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 keep. Eminently notable: WP:SKCRIT #3 may apply, but, either way, no reason to let this drag out for another 153 hours . (non-admin closure) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparethemarket.com[edit]

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

this looks like an obvious promotion of an organization violating WP:NOT:ADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable website that has been mentioned in multiple media. Passes WP:GNG. This is Paul (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear GNG pass. This AfD has no chance of succeeding. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not from the UK and even I've seen/heard of this company's commercials at the very least. Obvious GNG pass. Nate • (chatter) 04:37, 22 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) SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 01:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tofutti[edit]

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

this is a promotion of the company which violates WP:NOTADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-known and popular food company geared towards vegetarians. Google & Google News search indicates WP:GNG met. Article could use improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to say that, but could we see some sources? Google news search gives a lot of routine and machine-generated stories but not much proper journalistic reporting with meaningful information. The cited article is fine, but it's only one piece. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is notable, with ample sources about the company available from The New York Times and other sources. Any perception of advertising and promotion can be better solved by editing, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I performed some copy editing to address concerns with promotional tone. The article now reads neutrally, in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 28 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 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Trevor Project[edit]

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

the article is a promotion of the organization thus violating WP:NOTADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article easily meets WP:GNG with 50 sources cited in the article. The article is not especially promotional, and even if it were, AFDISNOTCLEANUP.- Mr X 21:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The article certainly reads like promotion, and a quick survey of the sources shows a large number are either connected with the organization , press releases, trivial mentions, or announcements. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. It could have a million terrible sources and 3 good ones, but would still merit keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing in the article is really bad despite the fact that it has so many: a lot of them are press releases, etc. That being said, it is not written in an overly promotional tone, and it does include enough references to independent sources that get it over GNG without needing to do a search outside of the article itself. Clear keep, but it could use cleanup on the citations. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above; the article does need cleanup but there's no case for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup but definitely as far from deletion as possible. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has enough sources to establish notability and it does not have any promotional tone. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mind boggles. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination. Unfortunately the nominator does not clearly indicate that they understand AfD criteria. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As already mentioned, it needs some work but it is not irretrievably promotional to the point of deletion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyBallioni. The sources aren't perfect, but there are some that fit WP:RS/WP:IS. --Hirsutism (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it can be improved.—‎Lost Whispers _talk 14:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable, even if the article has issues they're not TNT-worthy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Leap Technology Inc.[edit]

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

Difficult to see where notability is supposed to be. Most of the refs are about individual apps and n ot the company. Those that are about the company are directory style listings, blogs or interviews with key players. Nothing here is a reliable and robust source for notability. Reads very much like an advertisement and its orphan status tends to corroborate that. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I can't find any WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV - GretLomborg (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMO. — fortunavelut luna 14:04, 29 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 Yggdrasil. To allow merging of a mention there, if desired. One "keep" opinion is a pure vote, leaving us with only one "keep" that is an actual argument. Sandstein 06:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yggdrasil (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since Yggdrasil is unquestionably notable, and this is just one set of in popular culture references to the notable mythical tree. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources only, no indication of passing WP:GNG, since the only mentions are gaming books. If it is a plane, which the article doesn't make clear, I guess a merge per BOZ could be an option, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessively detailed fancruft sourced only to the work of fiction itself. No indication of real-world importance or notability. The main article on the actual real myth of Yggdrasil has a "Modern influences" section but it is very very doubtful whether this minor fictional location is important enough to be mentioned there and, even if it was, none of this content is suitable for merging there (or anywhere else) because of its terrible content and poor sourcing. As always, the idea that a real-world mythological thing automatically confers notability on any other fictional thing named after it is complete nonsense. Reyk _YO! 09:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability to people in the real world. Afdcruft. --24.112.231.178 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Blocked sock. Reyk _YO! 14:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, either to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons), or potentially to the main Yggdrasil article itself. There's already a modern influence section; this could be added there. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if a suitable target can be identified, merge (though likely very much trimmed). I'm not really sure I understand the thrust of any of those supporting keeping the article; if we have third party sources, then that's one thing, but if we don't, what do we really have to talk about? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I would also not objective to a selective merge. The only keep argument is extremely weak and this does not appear to pass the guidelines for notability. Aoba47 (talk) 14:23, 26 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. One "keep" opinion is a pure vote, leaving us with only one "keep" that is an actual argument. Sandstein 06:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Olympus (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since Mount Olympus is unquestionably notable, and this is just one set of in popular culture references to the notable mythical mountain. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always, that is a nonsensical argument. You're essentially trying to give any page even slightly based on real world history or mythology a free pass. This has to establish its own independent notability, and there is no way you can back up your stance with any policy or guideline. At absolute best, you could argue for merging to a pop culture article, although that would be the entirely wrong thing to do. TTN (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. References to primary sources only. No indication of importance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- poorly sourced fancruft, bloated with excessive plot detail. No indication of real-world notability. Even if the article on the real Mount Olympus were to have an "in popular culture" section (shudder!) none of this content would be suitable to be merged there because of its poor sourcing and terrible content. The idea that fictional things named after things in real-world mythology are automatically notable is ridiculous. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to passing notability guidelines. --24.112.231.178 (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Blocked sock. Reyk _YO! 14:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if a suitable target can be identified, merge (though likely very much trimmed). I'm not really sure I understand any of the arguments made for keeping the article; if we have third party sources, then that's one thing, but if we don't, what do we really have to talk about? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I would also not objective to a selective merge. The only keep argument is extremely weak and this does not appear to pass the guidelines for notability. Aoba47 (talk) 14:23, 26 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 02:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koshyari Committee Report On Grant Of One Rank One Pension[edit]

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

Essentially the same as One Rank One Pension -- same material, and both essentially advocacy at that. I think the first step is to reduce the number of articles. The context for the advocacy seemed very unclear, but I think it is about a plan to pay pensions to retired army officers at the same rates as police officers, with some added complications, including a claimed inequality for the few hundred army officers at the highest ranks DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing worthwhile that this adds over the OROP article, which already has a section about the committee. This article relies too heavily on the original report, which is a primary source. Without secondary sources talking about the committee itself, this material belongs back at the OROP article. Because most of this article is either primary source re-statements or redundant information the most logical conclusion is deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable or needed for stand alone article. Covered in the OROP article as noted above. Really just a WP:CFORK. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 23 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. Satisfied with sources identified under "Danny Crawford", which is different from current title.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Crawford[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. WP:NBASKETBALL does not presume notability of NBA referees. Coverage is predominantly WP:ROUTINE with brief mentions that he was referring a game. Dan Crawford (missionary) should be moved here. At best, place a hatnote to List of National Basketball Association referees. —Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Dan Crawford is a particularly prominent referee and has been for a long time. A quick check brought up several stories primarily about Crawford, e.g., [2] [3] [4] [5]. Rlendog (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rlendog: The first three sources are for Joey Crawford, not Dan Crawford.—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. Striking my keep. Still not convinced a 30 year prominent ref is non-notable though. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is something wrong with WP:NBASKETBALL if a one game player is presumed notable, but a referee with over 1700 games under his belt is not. AIRcorn (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aircorn: It's not in NBASKETBALL because referees generally don't receive significant coverage. Per WP:WHYN: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." Please identify that significant coverage exists. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet we give one game players a pass because a wikiproject made up some guidelines that that says they are presumed notable. He has been refereeing at the top level for 33 years. This includes taking charge of 1786 NBA games, with nearly 300 of them being play off games and 24 final games. These are significant numbers. A little common sense needs to be applied here. AIRcorn (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Common sense" = no sources beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage, right?—Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No commonsense as in there are probably sources around for a referee that has officiated at this level for this long if you look. These are from a quick google search: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Sure some may be routine, but he is also the main subject of many of them. Many draw attention to the fact that he currently has the longest consecutive NBA finals streak (including players) at 23.[17] AIRcorn (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I also just want to emphasise that this is not an exhaustive list, I mearly picked a few from a google search. There are plenty of others[18]. There are even some academic papers that mention him[19][20][21][22]. Highbeam has at least 47 articles[23]. Again some is routine, but not all. The routine stuff is no more routine than what you would find for a player anyway and it all adds up to more than satisfy the WP:GNG in my opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Aircorn. It seems like his WP:COMMONNAME is "Danny Crawford" so I missed most of these by searching "dan crawford" (with quotes).—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Gamba Osaka season[edit]

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

Season too far into the future. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too far in the future, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Giant Snowman 08:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perWP:CRYSTAL, insufficient information for an article at this moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as above. Obvious. Seems there's nothing even the creator can say about it, except slap an infobox on, thus avoiding WP:A3 :D (I see the 2019 games are here too. The same reasoning applies) — fortunavelut luna 14:07, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Gamba Osaka season[edit]

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

Season far in future - no sources. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too far in the future, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Giant Snowman 08:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perWP:CRYSTAL, insufficient information for an article at this moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as above. Obvious. Seems there's nothing even the creator can say about it, except slap an infobox on, thus avoiding WP:A3 :D (I see the 2020 games are here too. The same reasoning applies) — fortunavelut luna 14:08, 29 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 J.League Cup[edit]

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

No sources about event far in future - WP:CRYSTAL TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too far in the future, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Giant Snowman 08:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perWP:CRYSTAL, insufficient information for an article at this moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, article can always be recreated in the future when there is more information available and the topic is relevant. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:01, 28 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 02:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D'kaybee_Drones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D%27kaybee_Drones}}

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

Delete Company is non-notable - I could not find any reputable outside sources that might explain why this company is important. --Martey (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possible hoax (small outfit using COTS drones with this name might exist, but the article content reads as a hoax to me).Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is part of a wider hoax by user:Zopssin and user:Boqino to promote an independent Ashantiland - I'm working through lots of other such changes.Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable. WP:Corp applies. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 23 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closed company[edit]

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

This is basically a dictionary definition. It is currently unsourced, and it is hard to see how it could ever be a proper article, or even a stub. It does not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria that I can see. Delete as per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. --Hirsutism (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a dictionary. Also "closed company" can mean many things in many legal contexts across the world, so the article falls short of a serious portrayal of what constitutes a "closed company". _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT: also, regarding what JB touches on above; a 'merge' would have been a possible !vote, but there are so many way and forms in which a company can close, that the possibilities for the target redirect are legion, and thus inapplicable. — fortunavelut luna 14:10, 29 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 as per G4. (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 04:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FINO PayTech[edit]

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

The coverage that I could locate during a WP:BEFORE search is purely routine business announcements, press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage of a business. There is nothing that satisfies WP:CORP and no indication of a reason why this company qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Yes, it exists - but that's not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as WP:PROMO with future looking statements such as "Fino will be providing ...". Salt due to persistent recreation. The article has been previously deleted: "October 2016 Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) deleted page FINO PayTech (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Standard variety WP:CORPSPAM failing GNG/NCOMPANY. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent refs. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably only company which was issued a Payments Bank license and does not have a wikipedia article yet. Edited out the tone to get rid of promotional/spam nature and added more citation from Wharton, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and more trusted media sources..Disclosure: I created the article and I have no connection to the company in any manner and I'm not paid for doing this. (hope I'll have to keep repeating this till I become a household Wikipedia name among community memebers for business related articles :D) Attaching the link to Google trends link to hint the public demand: https://trends.google.co.in/trends/explore?q=fino%20paytech Theaphorist (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has been deleted earlier by different name for not adhering to Wiki standards for companies. Light2021 (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 per Light2021; this was debated once before at WP:Articles for deletion/FINO (company). - Bri (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems like this was deleted already (ping User:Phantomsteve), so shouldn't this be closed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 27 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. Sandstein 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand national football team results – unofficial matches[edit]

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

Football friendlies. Non notable. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Giant Snowman 08:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no consensus exists to say that these types of matches are notable; fails WP:LISTN Spiderone 17:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unofficial matches are not notable therefore this list fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:33, 29 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. Sandstein 06:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of terrorist incidents[edit]

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE (WP:NOT) listing of things that could be construed as types of terrorism.

Insofar as classification of terrorist incidents is a thing, in order to keep this from being indiscriminate (and WP:OR), the scope of the subject should be delimited (who classifies? classification based on means or ends?). It also needs to be demonstrated that the topic of classification of terrorism is discussed in sources in detail (WP:GNG).

This is a one Wikipedia editor's original typology of terrorism inappropriately presented in WP:WIKIVOICE in articlespace. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOR, and WP:NOTDICT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see much in the article Terrorism or elsewhere that comprehensively discusses the actual practical techniques used by terrorism, as distinct to more philosophical questions about types of terrorism. So I wonder if some of this information could be repurposed or merged to Terrorism. But currently it looks like it's an article on some kind of classification scheme, but it doesn't specify what that scheme's authority is, and it's not referenced at all. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article was referenced and better classified, there is a possibility this could be a useful standalone article or at least a part of the Terrorism article. However, in the form it is in now, the article serves no purpose because we cannot even verify if these are official terms to describe methods of terror or something the author thought of himself/herself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like WP:SYN. This is not a commonly accepted classification of anything, and not a useful list. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 22 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danni Daniels[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG bd2412 T 16:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and WP:GNG. The article's creator inquired about notability at WikiProject Pornography and since then has loaded the article up with extensive copyright infringement from the cited sources. Fails PORNBIO criterion #1 with only award nominations. PORNBIO criterion #3 says "featured in multiple mainstream media. Does not satisfy WP:ENT with only one notable show. Finally, GNG requires multiple independent secondary sources. This article relies on (and copies from) interviews, which are primary sources. Other sources are about the show. There is only one source left that is plausibly reliable, independent and non-trivial. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all of WP:PORNBIO points and WP:GNG.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:06, 22 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 Tagged for speedy deletion under A7 (no indication of significance) and Deleted under that criterion DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moein Mohammadi[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:Nmusic.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Not notable. ¤ KOLI ^{1 Tir 1396 ≈} 05:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep In my opinion, this article is useful for Wikipedia and will be more complete with time. ¤ giwarnajafi55~~ —Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC) — giwarnajafi55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Moein Mohammadi's article is the starting point for writing another article by Kurdish Rappers.By deleting it, no profit or loss comes to me. But be sure to help Wikipedia with keeping it. ¤ afshin k2 08:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC) — afshin k2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete GNG not met. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep This is useful. ¤ Sherko777 09:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)~~— Sherko777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note that one person should not use multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, perhaps for anyone wishing to promote the subject, or for a fan who would be as well served at subject's webpage.. However, the subject is non-notable and Wikipedia is not a webhost. Guess it's time to put up not a vote sign. Oh, someone did. Also, anyone who suddenly happened into one of our more obscure sections, and just so it's understood, should probably read WP:Sock.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Giwarnajafi55 and Sherko777 are Confirmed socks of Afshin k2. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afshin k2.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 22 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mislav Maretić[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer (sorry, footy!) player for a non-notable youth team. No coverage whatsoever in RS and I don't see anything that indicates he meets WP:NFOOTY. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:59, 24 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. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both criteria; could meet criteria in future so could be recreated then Spiderone 17:47, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Christer Lauren[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP. A nasty bit of work, but not worth an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little lasting relevance. /Julle (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Completely unencyclopaedic news item that occurs, tragically, on a daily basis: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. — fortunavelut luna 14:13, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tomanek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edward Tomanek

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

This page seems to be a self made page for a complete unknown person currently underserving of an encyclopaedic entry. There doesn't seem to be any reason to keep the page active upon evaluating the sources; one is the Daily Mail, a wholly unreliable source; the Cambridge Post article does not seem to exist any longer; one source is from the NSO which has no record of reliability and again could have been written by the subject of the article themselves; and finally, being featured in the prospectus of a secondary school does not constitute anything besides proof of being a student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T1grr (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are more reliable sources on him: ITV News, Daily Mirror, Haber Turk. Whether that's enough is another question... Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to be a self-made page, note that the subject appears to have previously requested deletion here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete Marginal case and individual himself has previously requested deletion. In those cases, we should delete. Bondegezou (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not even marginal. Clearly does not meet the guidelines for musicians. Limited evidence of performances, no recordings. I consider child prodigies to be notable only if they are also notable in their profession. Otherwise it's just the sort of "human interest" non-encyclopedic coverage that violates NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 25 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Benn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Attention on Ms Benn's comes in two ways: she's a local councillor and a failed Parliamentary candidate. This fails WP:NPOL. However, she has also attracted some attention as Tony Benn's granddaughter, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If we exclude routine election coverage and mentions in articles about her family, there's very little left that's actually about her. The main thing left is this spat with Andrew Fisher, that is better covered on his page. This article was up for AfD twice before, with a "keep" decision in 2009 and "no consensus" decision in 2010. Expectations of notability have tightened since then, so I think it's worth re-considering this article. I would also note that there's been not much more recently on Ms Benn: no evidence of lasting significance. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep No you can't prod this article and as this is its third trip to AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Emily Benn WP:Articles for deletion/Emily Benn (2nd nomination) as you don't seem to have linked them above) then you need to show a better case than IDONTLIKEIT for why things have changed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I broke the template and can't work out how to fix it, thus the link to prior AfDs is not showing above. If anyone can fix, please help -- thanks! The AfDs are first and second. I think the reasons I have given are clear enough to support a normal discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andy Dingley has now fixed this -- thanks. Back to the actual discussion... Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that for a normal politician, she would not normally meet the politics-specific inclusion criteria. However, she is not a normal politician, as part of one of the UKs most notable political families. With being part of this comes reliable sources that satisfy WP:GNG; it is my view that the GNG must take precedence over WP:NPOL. The core principle of GNG is: if there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. These sources: [24], [25], [26], [27], all from major UK news outlets clearly show her notability as required by the GNG.
The issue raised on inherent notability is not an issue here. From the specific WP:ITSA: Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. As shown above, sources do exists so we can't claim that the article fails WP:ITSA as verifiable evidence has shown to the contrary. The high quality sources exist, and so does the notability. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Coverage that comes as part of standing for an election, which seems to me to be the latter three of the articles you give, should not count towards WP:GNG. That's the point of WP:NPOL/WP:POLOUTCOMES, I suggest: we can cover candidates on the relevant election or constituency articles. (It's kind of a variation of WP:1E.) Otherwise all sorts of unsuccessful candidates would get in on GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think WP:POLOUTCOMES last point is very pertinant to the issue here. It is saying that local officials who received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role may be notable. The articles above are not the normal, routine coverage that a candidate for parliament gets - your average candidate does not get a full BBC News, or Independant article covering their candidateship - this is coverage at a national level that is far above what is expected. This counts to notability. Further, a normal candidate does not get a whole Times article covering a day in their life. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - If someone had a Times obituary, I'd say they were definitely notable. Everyone who gets a Times obituary should have a Wikipedia article. But the "a day in the life" series in the Sunday Times that covered this person is a cutesy, human interest thing. Not everyone covered should have a Wikipedia article. I wouldn't put too much weight on it. The coverage of her candidacy could be better covered in a broader article, as per WP:POLOUTCOMES third bullet point. A sentence or two about her in a broader article (something like "Emily Benn was the fifth generation from her family to stand for Parliament and would have been the youngest MP ever had she been successful") seems more appropriate to me than a whole article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think cutesy, human interest still illustrates that she is significant. There would be no reason to write a day in the life about a non-notable/significant person. She has been the subject of many independant major UK news articles. That shows notability. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seven years later, she has since been elected to office. Whether or not you disagree with the decisions made in the '09 and'10 discussions, she has since been elected as a local councilor. In this position, she was a major local political figure who received significant press coverage, allowing her to fulfill the notability standard as seen in WP:POLITICIAN. SOXROX (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Forgive me, but WP:POLITICIAN says being a local councillor is insufficient. She clearly fails those criteria: she has to get in on WP:N as far as I can see. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From WP:POLITICIAN criteria, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are notable, where a politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. The sources TheMagikCow provided, in addition to [28] to me constitute independent in-depth coverage in multiple news feature articles by journalists. Particularly, as per WP:POLOUTCOMES guidelines, all sources provided here are from national publications. Ralbegen (talk) 12:10, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG. this has been discussed recently on talk page. Whilst it looks like lots of sources, almost all the sources that I could access do not even mention the society. The article uses WP:SYNTH by padding out the achievements of individual members and using sources not even about the society. The sum total of members achievements does not equate to notability of the society. Michael Kmit for example uses about 10 of the 50 sources. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The initial AfD made allowances for the development of the article contingent on WP:RS to establish that the organisation passed WP:N (not simply WP:V). Years down the track, this has not been met. While a couple of artists who are notable were members of the organisation (irrelevant per WP:INHERITORG), the organisation itself fails per WP:ORGCRITE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research promoting the organisation, two things that Wikipedia is not. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:46, 27 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 deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Bassi[edit]

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

Non-notable, promotional article - speedy deletion template removed by brand new editor Melcous (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The second WP:SPA editor who arrived to remove the speedy deletion template also appears to have signed a Talk page comment by the first editor: [29]. AllyD (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article as it stands is a froth of PR backed only by primary sources. My searches, including the tailored Wikiproject India search, are finding nothing better. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G11 - Nope. Not doing this crap. This is promotional garbage and is a slam dunk G11, whether an obvious COI SPA removed the CSD is irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 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 speedy keep. Opened by a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hitotsubashi Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no references or links and not a SHRED of notability. Hitotsubashi Group has been exposed they are NOT notable WP:GNG fail and that is the TRUTH Mikey 38291 (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)— Mikey 38291 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Procedural Close Possible bad-faith nomination. It is worth pointing out that the nominator removed the references from the article in question with this edit, which is definitely not the actions of a good-faith editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also issued a first-level warning to the nominator for content blanking, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cow cleaner 5000 Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:17, 27 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ah well, it's clear this isn't going anywhere. Apologies for wasting your time. — Amakuru (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2017, by parliamentary constituency[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTREPOSITORY, Wikipedia shouldn't just be a repository for huge pages full of stats, with no accompanying explanation or encyclopedic context. The main article at United Kingdom general election, 2017 can provide an external link to the BBC's page of detailed vote counts, and furthermore all this information is already found on the pages of the individual constituencies, with explanatory text. If this is deleted, then I would expect the equivalent ones for 2015 and 2010 to follow. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see that either WP:NOTSTATS or WP:NOTREPOSITORY actually apply. WP:NOTSTATS specifically allows spin-off articles with more detailed stats, giving Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 as an example. This page could probably do with some work, but if Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 is allowed, then this certainly seems to get over the bar. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A very similar article exists Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2015 by parliamentary constituency. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article passes WP:NOTSTATS. This guideline specifically states that: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. 650 constituencies is obviously lengthy so is not suitable for an article, but this is encyclopedic content as it is summarized fully in the main 2017 UK general election article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above noting these article meets guidelines. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On the common-sense grounds that this page is useful, as are the other similar pages. Although all the information can be found elsewhere, I cannot find another simple list: the BBC seems to expect you to read one web page per consituency, which is hopelessly slow. Alan-24 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am shocked to see this article proposed for deletion. This is an incredibly useful article, and not only prior UK elections but also U.S. House elections have Wikipedia pages with just this sort of information. I am strongly in support of keeping this article. -Gregory N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory N (talk • contribs) 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am one of the main contributors to this article, and I made it specifically because it is useful to see all the information about constituency level results on one page. I also meant it to be a spin-off of the main article on the 2017 General Election. I think the other comments here accurately demonstrate that this article should not be deleted. Watson39 (talk) 05:50, 22 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) Winged Blades^Godric 09:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Tuivasa[edit]

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

Non notable mma fighter - des not meet WP:NMMA PRehse (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been the subject of several dedicated articles in mainstream non-specialist newspapers in Australia, therefore meets WP:GNG.[30][31][32] — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 28 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. Sandstein 06:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titeeksha Tawde[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR.Only media presence is in playing a singular role in a regional TV soap. Winged Blades^Godric 12:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IMDb lists one credit, Saraswati. The Times of India says she's the "star of the popular Marathi show",[38] but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:23, 22 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 and redirect to Wanna One. Sandstein 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Daniel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wanna One for now. If he is more notable later-on, we can add this article back. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I agree with Tibbydibby, for now the article should be redirected until more notable work comes along. Abdotorg (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Wanna One, he have not notable solo work yet for separate page.(Toomass (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect per above and nom. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:10, 29 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 Wanna One. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Dae-hwi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, no notable solo work of any kind. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wanna One: per arguments of nominator. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tibbydibby, for now the article should be redirected until more notable work comes along. Abdotorg (talk) 13:39, 24 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. Jytdog's argument is persuasive. Sandstein 06:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation approaches[edit]

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

This has been tagged for cleanup for almost a decade, and the page is almost entirely copied from Evaluation anyway. Famous _dog (c) 08:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not clean-up. Might I suggest you propose a merge to Evaluation if you feel they're not sufficiently distinct. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete with fire. This is general mumbo-jumbo book reportish gunk. It should have been deleted back when it was created, as the same person who created this (diff) in Feb 2006, added the same content to evaluation at the same time (diff}. One of the deletion criteria is WP:A10 and the deletion policy says that any speedy criteria is good enough here. So even technically in the deletion policy this can go. but oy. Thanks to the nom for picking this up. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Pandit[edit]

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

Yes there is a claim of notability. And refs, so no speedy. The claim to notability is fairly preposterous, and the refs don't convince. TheLongTone (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Himalayan Times item doesn't mention the claim to notability, merely recording that an individual died. Noting WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I am not seeing evidence that the subject's activities were of lasting encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim is in [39]. Technically, he meets GNG. It's not barred by ONEEVENT--the stories are about his death on Denali, his ascent of Kilimanjaro, and his other runs and climbs. Perhaps this can bet be seen as another example that not everything that meets GNG actually belongs in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 29 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 moving to List of murdered musicians. If the said list gets expanded in the future, then Clarityfiend's suggestion of renaming the list to "Lists" can also be undertaken. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murdered musicians[edit]

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

There is no relevant connection between murder victims and musicians. The page has no relevant sources except a ranker page which list 26 not 15 people.. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia. Category should be enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it trivia as a list but not as a category? It's the same classification or grouping regardless of format. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could redirect to List of deaths in rock and roll since most on the murdered musicians list would fit on the other list? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. According to a study,[40] murder rates differ significantly for different music genres, peaking at a staggering 51% among rappers and hip hoppers, but that's a different potential article. (Oddly enough, blues artists have an above-average average lifespan.) It makes no sense to lump them all together. Don't redirect, as we also have a List of murdered hip hop musicians. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Lists of murdered musicians, not List of murdered musicians. We've already got List of murdered hip hop musicians and another could easily be obtained from List of deaths in rock and roll. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and Category:Murdered musicians. The list does demonstrate the advantages of a list, I suppose, with six sortable fields. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"“There is absolutely no database on pop musicians alive or dead,” Kenny said. “So I had to troll through the Internet.” But Kenny wasn’t just checking out Wikipedia." [41] that tells me this is not an encyclopedia topic. It's OR. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN and Category:Murdered musicians. I agree that the list demonstrates the advantages of a list. It has the potential for quick growth that will add dimension. Although it is in need of more rigorous sourcing, that is something I am interested enough to have begun working on today. To expand the article's utility, I have collected a list of 43 notable musicians today and have found an array of legitimate sources for citation. I'm interested in knowing whether others here think it would be useful to categorize the list by either genre or decade to further maximize its sortability. (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenERiggs (talk • KarenERiggs (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)contribs) [reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and Category:Murdered musicians. BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of murdered musicians. The list is fine to keep but there's never going to be any other content. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: 11 artists have been added. Significant to me is that the range of genres has diversified. Subsequently, I edited to provide links and bring consistency to artists' notability (genre + instrument role). I hope to add several of my own items but will wait to see how this discussion turns out. Hope this helps. § KarenERiggs (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, rename, too. My bad. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Previous arguments are convincing. kareneriggs 08:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)§KarenERiggs (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming. This not a notable topic but is an acceptable list of all blue links Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of murdered musicians. A well-defined topic - to which I've just added three names from classical music for good measure (two from personal knowledge, one after a search), with citations. Searching to create or edit an article (including a list) isn't WP:OR - it's research. WP:OR only comes into play when an editor adds, or attributes, something to a source which isn't there. Narky Blert (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added another classical musician - I vaguely remembered the case, and found the name easily enough. Narky Blert (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could add at least three more who were murdered in Auschwitz in 1944 :-( Narky Blert (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a Qawwali singer, murdered by the Taliban in 2016 for being the wrong sort of Muslim. Narky Blert (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Murdered musicians, then rename to List of murdered musicians. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 29 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 Elections in New Jersey. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unaffiliated (New Jersey)[edit]

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

Delete as a topic not notable enough for a standalone article. Independent voters in New Jersey, regardless of the name, do not significantly differ from independents in any other U.S. state and no claim of that has been made in the article. The definition of an independent voter is already appropriately covered in the Independent voter and Unenrolled voter articles, and I don't see any useful content that could justify a merge. Slon02 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & merge to Politics of New Jersey.--TM 01:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The particular ways in which independent voters may vote and participate in primary elections are unique to New Jersey and appropriately covered in a standalone article that is backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could Alansohn or any other Jerseyan elaborate briefly on how independent voters' effect on primary elections in New Jersey is different from the 11 other closed-primary states listed at Primary elections in the United States? Not knowing how elections are run there, I am genuinely curious if there is a major difference. If there isn't, I would think this information, including any minor quirks related to New Jersey (terminology, timelines) could be covered adequately in the primary elections article, and/or Politics of New Jersey and/or Independent voter as suggested above. _``` t b w i l l i e _` $1.25 _` 03:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a Jerseyan (across the river), but NJ has a semi-open primary system: only party members can vote, but unaffiliateds can sign up to join that party at the polls. This is not a unique system in the United States, where there are only 9 states with fully closed primaries, 19 states don't have party options on voter registration forms, and a plurality of states have ranging degrees of semi-open/semi-closed primary systems. I think our existing articles on US party registration and primary elections could do with some expansion, but I'm not seeing very much evidence of NJ being a particularly unique case - somewhat interesting, yes, but not unique.--Slon02 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 5 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, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elections in New Jersey. This is valuable information, but not well enough developed to be split off from is parent article or, in this case, it's grandparent article, since neither Primaries in New Jersey nor Party affiliation in New Jersey exist. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per above. There is just not enough here for a stand alone article and this is likely to end up as a perma-stub. If at some point that changes we can always recreate the article and expand it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm usually wary to relist a fourth time but since consensus seems to be in favor of merging and redirecting, the question of the target has to be answered. Namiba suggested Politics of New Jersey while Philosopher suggested Elections in New Jersey and Ad Orientem arguing for "per above" without clarifying which "above" they mean.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the apparent consensus in this discussion, and after looking over the contents of the two proposed merge destinations, I think that Elections in New Jersey would be the appropriate merge destination. That article better describes the political landscape of the state - and thus would be more ideal for a mention of the state's peculiar voter registration laws - than the politics article, which largely discusses the state's history as well as political issues.--Slon02 (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the page contents, I recommend Elections in New Jersey as a merge/redirect target. There's a case that Elections in New Jersey could be merged to Politics of New Jersey later, but that would need to be discussed on the talk pages first. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect. No case for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 27 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Roth (Concordia)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Rhododendrites with the following rationale "WP:NACADEMIC #6". First, let's not forget that WP:PROF is a supplement to WP:GNG and cannot overrule it. I am, nonetheless, biased favorably towards inclusion of academics, but I don't think this one meets any PROF criteria. I don't see any publications to speak of, suggesting he came from the administrative track. Further, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Well, it is debatable it this is a major institution - to me this is a minor regional university with no significant world wide impact, so - not major (it is the very definition of minor). Further, the very existence of this individual is hard to prove: no mention of him on the university webpage, google hits are wiki mirrors and forks, cited article does not seem to exist in google outside said mirrors and forks, I don't see said article on HighBeam, GNews, etc. If this is not a WP:HOAX it sure as hell doesn't have much to defend itself with, and it very clearly fails WP:GNG otherwise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources evident. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The claim to pass Prof criteria 6 comes from an over broad interpretation of that criteria. In the 1970s the institution in question was just transitioning out of being a high school. It would not actually grant any 4-year degrees until 1988. Even at that Roth might have a chance of being considered passing the criteria if we had some more sources, but the total lack beyond the one source is just not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I deprodded because a claim which typically satisfies one or more notability criteria means at very least the subject merits the closer scrutiny of AfD. Having looked for sources, however, I'm not finding anything more than what others have. Even if he were president of a major university, we need sources to write an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 27 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. Sandstein 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kondreman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Substub about webcomic. Got no consensus years back in the day where existence=notability. Nothing has improved since. Fails WP:GNG just like it did back then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The official site link for the subject no longer works. The article claims the cartoon is published in De Ware Tijd, but when I visited the official website and searched for "Kondreman", it returned one result that is an article containing the word in a quote, not a comic strip. With the caveat that I cannot understand the language it's written in, this seems to be obviously non-notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I have been able to find a source that confirms that this strip has indeed been published in De West and De Ware Tijd! link. However, this is literally all I've been able to find about the webcomic. It hasn't really been covered by any reliable sources. Google searching for the title or the cartoonist gives no relevant results other than this one book mention. There's simply no notability here. All we have to say about it is already described in our article on De Ware Tijd. Very strong delete. ~Mable (chat) 19:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Soft delete by redirecting to De Ware Tijd then? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose a redirect, but I don't think one would be very useful. The link for Kondreman on De Ware Tijd was added by User:Alarichus solely to remove the orphan tag that had been on Kondreman in 2009. The information there ("The Kondreman cartoon is published by the newspaper since 2005.") appears to be outdated, since I couldn't find anything about the cartoon on the newspaper's website. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 22 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 Deleted upon request. G7ed by Fuhghettaboutit. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Godard[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. This is based entirely on primary sources (her own website, her own Instagram, the website of her publisher, Amazon.com) with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all, and the only notability claim even being attempted here is that she made Amazon's bestseller list in a highly specialized and rarefied category. A single-vendor bestseller list does not count as a notability claim for our purposes, however — to attain notability for making a bestseller list, a writer needs to have hit a list on the order of The New York Times or The Globe and Mail, not just one bookstore (whether online or physical). As always, writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist —they must have a credible notability claim per AUTHOR, and the reliable source coverage in media to properly support it, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:AUTHOR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are independent references available eg http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/10/17/fighting-bullies-with-words--cochrane-teen-pens-book--for-the-beautiful-people and http://www.cochranetimes.com/2016/10/05/teen-reaches-publishing-deal-for-book-series so although I would like to get rid of this sort of page, it appears to pass WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:32, 22 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. Sandstein 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NC Media Law Handbook[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about a book, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NBOOK is that it exists. The only two references here are a copy of the book in PDF format, and the website of the organization that published it -- which makes them both primary sources that cannot carry notability. As always, a book does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because its existence can be nominally verified by metareferencing it to itself; a book needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage, in media which are independent of its own publisher's self-promotion efforts, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable online-only state legal guidebook regarding a niche practice area; I found no independent secondary sources, and none likely exist outside my search capabilities (or ever will, because no one outside a relative handful of North Carolinians will ever have use for it, and even fewer will have any reason to write about it). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:11, 23 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated feature films submitted for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film[edit]

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

List of dubious value; it serves to group animated films which were submitted for consideration (of which only one ever actually got an actual nomination) to a film award that has nothing whatsoever to do with animation. "List of X which are also Q" is not a thing we do on Wikipedia, if X and Q are unconnected traits that have no defining relationship to each other. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. It's an odd list, with no relationship between the two elements (animation, BFLF). It certainly has a "so what?" factor to it and no real world notability. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESAL; this rather specific cross-categorization does not seem to be discussed or listed outside Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too specific a criterion for a list. Any existing list/category of all films submitted for Best Foreign Language Film is sufficient; submission is not notable enough to justify detailed sub-pages like this. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not clear why you would have this and not e.g. List of westerns submitted for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film or List of Dogme 95 films submitted for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Why this intersection? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:09, 22 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. self-written spam for non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Luv[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO; apparent WP:Autobiography. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You know it's a redflag when the first link / reference is for itunes. WP:TOOSOON at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Marie Waters[edit]

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

Poorly written mess on a non-notable defeated political candidate. All coverage related to her extreme views when she was a candidate for office. No in-depth coverage in reliable or quality sources. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Furthermore, the article was created by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer and political edit warrior, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothycrice/Archive. AusLondonder (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article appears neutral at present, has substantial coverage as focus of articles in independent sources, including one from only yesterday which isn't yet in the article, and this article by Raheem Kassam would also be a useful source to demonstrate her importance to the right-wing of UKIP. Warofdreams talk 23:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is not a reliable source and the Pink News article purely discusses her candidacy for election. It does not go anywhere near significant, in-depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is a reliable source for the views of its contributors, which is why it would be useful in this article. The Pink News article is entirely focused on her candidacy (clearly not just routine coverage of any candidate) and therefore contributes to evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 21:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i would think the contributors at WP:BLPN may disagree with you. Sources such as Breitbart are very rarely considered acceptable for BLPs. WP:NPOL states "...being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the guidelines, thanks, and how this article meets them. Warofdreams talk 14:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder The supplementary notability guidelines for politians say that only successful candidates satisfy the looser criteria for politicians as a matter of course. But those guidelines also point out that they don't preclude starting articles on failed politicians who measure up to GNG. If Waters has already been covered well enough to measure up to the criteria of GNG, then you are misinterpreting NPOL. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done what I can to re-organise and trim down the article. It was a complete mess previously. I think Warofdreams (talk · contribs) adequately demonstrates her general notability. Ralbegen (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A failed (and controversial) political candidate. In view of the expressed intention to stand for UKIP-leadership, I might be prepared to await events for (say) three months. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge The clean-up is welcome and has improved the article significantly, but there's not enough to meet notability criteria. Content could perhaps be merged into Pegida UK. Bondegezou (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep– seems to be a well-written and well-sourced neutral article; Waters seems to pass the notability criteria due to her involvement in Pegida UK and her current bid to become UKIP leader. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nominator AusLondonder starts this nomination by asserting the article is a "Poorly written mess". Being poorly written is not a criteria for article deletion! I see an increasing number of nominators calling for the deletion of articles because they think they are poorly written. I think it has to be spelled out to them that when the topic itself is notable, we address concerns that the article si poorly written in other ways. We tag it for improvement. We raise our concerns on the article's talk page, or on other fora. Maybe we figure out who wrote the passages that concern us, and share that concern on the other contributor's talk page. It is a violation of policy to call for the deletion of an article because we think it is poorly written. So, don't do it. Don't even think about doing it, unless the talk page shows a long history of sincere, good faith attempts to reach a consensus, and the article remains a mess because those good faith attempts failed. Note: this is an extremely rare occurrence. Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nominatior AusLondonder seems to be suggesting that this article should be deleted, in part, because it was started by an individual who was indefinitely blocked four months later. However a diff between the last version edite by Timothycrice and the latest version shows that 34 other contributors worked on the article, since then. That diff shows the article has largely been rewritten.
Problematic contributors can still have been capable of finding notable topics we weren't covering, and starting articles on them.
I have never heard of a policy or discussion that authorized the blanket deletion of all of the articles started by contributors who were found to be problematic. If there have been rare instances where ARB of the WMF office have authorized this, I have never heard of them. If nominator can't find a specific discussion authorizing the blanket deletion of all articles started by Timothycrice, then I would encourage them to strike out that part of their nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination seems to be asserting that they could not find "in-depth coverage in reliable or quality sources." I am not a mind reader, but I am guessing that nominatior AusLondonder is trying to suggest we can't have a biographical article on AusLondoner unless we cite sources that lay out the mundane milestones of her life, like where she was born, where she studied, if she was married, or reasonable equivalent, and had children.
If so, this is a serious misinterpretation of "in-depth coverage". A nominator made the same mistake in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Vladeck. DGG's comment said, in part: "Of course biographic detail is nice, but unnecessary--a notable person is notable because of the work they do , not by virtue of being born. Even under the GNG do not need in depth coverage of the person's personal life, just of the aspects of his life that bring forth notability." Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as per my comments above, I found this to be a flawed and counterpolicy nomination, one that misinterpreted our policies and guidelines. I think we should be entitled to expect nominators to fully and fairly comply with WP:BEFORE. The nomination merely describes Waters as a "failed candidate".
Woah! Her party would not allow her to run as a candidate in 2016. Surely being barred from running as a candidate is more notable than being allowed to run, and then losing?
The Independent wrote: "Ukip leader Paul Nuttall said the views espoused by Ms Waters, who appeared on far-right Swedish online platform Red Ice TV this month, made him feel “uncomfortable” and the party's national executive committee would be looking at her record later on Friday."
What this is, is International coverage. Ms Waters is notable enough to be interviewed in foreign countries. She has an International reputations, had one in 2016. Nominator seemed to assert the consensus at WP:RSN was a blanket disallowal of the use of Breitbart. No offense, but I didn't take this assertion at face value. I found there is a long discussion going on at RSN, right now. Reasonable people there are saying the same thing Warofdreams said: "Breitbart is a reliable source for the views of its contributors". Breitbart's writers have written about her on numerous occasions.
AusLondonder could you lay out your specific concerns about using Breitbart references in this article, at RSN? Could you lay out specific concerns about each Breitbart article that covered Waters, on the article's talk page?
Even if we preclude the 2017 coverage, and all Breitbart coverage, this google news search tosses up coverage of Waters in multiple contexts:

Donald Trump Jr. tweeted about Waters.
- Donald Trump Jr. Is Tweeting Straight- Up White Nationalist Propaganda Now
Waters was invited to be a debater, in a high-profile debate at Oxford, as to whether Islam is a religion of Peace
- Debate: This House believes Islam is a religion of peace
- What Islam-bashers can learn from The West Wing’s Aaron Sorkin
Waters helped organize an event where partcipants were encouraged to draw a cartoon of Mohammed, an act that has triggered some of the most extreme muslim fundamentalists to violent acts
Organized an anti-muslim training site.
- MPs call for 'anti-Muslim paramilitary manual' website to be investigated
A talk she gave, in London, stirred protest
- “People will call me Islamophobic”: UKIP’s Waters
An undercover journalist followed her, and surreptiously recorded her, and claimed the recordings included "anti-Islamic hate speech"
- Ukip MP candidate for Lewisham East, Anne-Marie Waters caught spouting anti-Islamic hate

So, keep. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article passes WP:GNG. Sure it needs improvement and expansion as well a perhaps a shift in tone but overall but that can all be improved upon and I would say the subject is by far notable enough for Wikipedia. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:09, 28 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. Sandstein 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galli (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 25 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. So Why 20:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Haaland[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as a state political party chair and as an as-yet-nonwinning candidate in a future election. As always, neither of these are claims of notability that constitute a free pass over WP:NPOL -- state political party chairs can have articles if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG, but are not guaranteed articles just for existing if the sourcing isn't there, and unelected candidates for office get articles only if they already cleared a notability standard independently of the candidacy. But the sourcing here is more than 50 per cent primary sources (her own campaign website, her own social networking profiles, Ballotpedia), whereas the sources that do count as media coverage are all in the context of her candidacy itself (which is routine and not notability-assisting, because every candidate in any election always gets as much coverage for that as has been shown here.) So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for office aren't notable under NPOL. It's possible she will become notable through GNG before the election based on her existing party role and coverage of her campaign, but she clearly isn't at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent & non-local sources. czar 19:13, 29 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. Sandstein 06:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arkorful[edit]

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

This is not a notable surname per WP:APONOTE as there aren't at least two notable people with the name. APONOTE also mentions that a properly sourced name article may still be notable without a list. However, there is not a source in sight to verify any of the information provided in the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:11, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Surnames should be notable, but this one comes from a part of the world where scholarly documentation of cultural issues is hard to come by. I think that we should cut this one more slack than usual. Jeremiah Arkorful is a footballer who was deleted as NN, but I believe has since met WP:NFOOTY and I have asked for it to be restored at DRV. That means one more notable person will get this past APONOTE. We also have several notable people (and a horse) named Arko which, according to this article, is a variant of the name, so perhaps a merge would be in order if it can't be kept standalone. SpinningSpark 10:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no content with any reliable source. If Jeremiah Arkorful is restored, this can become a redirect from surname. If articles on other individuals are ever created, this can become a surname list. older ≠ wiser 10:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no citations to reliable sources, or any sources at all. I found no discussions of this surname in reliable sources. In Google Scholar I found a number of authors with this last name, as well as a few mentions of people who possessed this surname, but I found no mention of it qua surname. There were no such mentions in Google Books (absent Wikipedia material). If the author Alvrey had a source we are unlikely to extract it from him/her as this basically single purpose account has been inactive since March 2012. --Bejnar (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to contain content verifiable from reliable sources. Bejnar has shown there is no easily accesible content that supports the assertions in the article. Short of that we have no reason to have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 28 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. So Why 20:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Fernanda Londoño[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON fails to establish WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has substantial coverage in the richmond, VA area.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] If desired, the rest of the tags can be removed. For the Richmond, VA area, there is substantial coverage from independent reliable resources on this person. Furthermore there are substantial hits with the subject name and the word fashion^[5]. Wikifash (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)user:wikifash Wikifash (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Wikifash (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Wikifash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com/search?q=maria+fernanda+Londo%C3%B1o+richmond+va&oq=maria+fernanda+londo%C3%B1o+richmon&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i60.5503j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
^ http://www.richmond.com/fashion-contest-raises-nearly-for-christmas-mother-fund-grants/article_e78044a7-84cf-589c-ba58-7330497bbc80.html
^ https://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/photos-runway-2016-emerge-at-vcu/Content?oid=2329044
^ http://www.hercampus.com/school/vcu/vcu-pop-fashion-show
^ https://www.google.com/search?q=maria+fernanda+Londo%C3%B1o+richmond+va&oq=maria+fernanda+londo%C3%B1o+richmon&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i60.5503j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=maria+fernanda+Londo%C3%B1o+fashio

Comment - There are only 42 Ghits for "Maria Fernanda Londoño" and the word "fashion." 130 for "Maria Fernanda Londoño" and 172 pages for the search you cited. Go to the bottom of the last page of the search for the real number.

Comment Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g. Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online. The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings,[13] and for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches. For example, while the Alexa Toolbar is useful, its utility is limited by its userbase (numbers and willingness) and by data scarcity (less data tends to raise error margins). When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links. --- The QUALITY of the links/hits referenced are enough to distinguish notability

Comment Maria's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition at [The Valentine] and the [VMFA]Wikifash (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither her nor her "brand" appear to be sufficiently notable. Best coverage we do have appear to stem from her university days, in a school fashion show. As the nominator says, may well just be a case of too soon. She is not a notable fashion designer, for our purposes, at this time. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to notability guidelines, "too soon" is not a reason to delete an article (note above comment: evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links.) Of course her recognition comes mostly from school, according to the article she just graduated last year- therefore she is an emerging designer and although her brand is not yet widely recognized, this should not deflect from the ample amount of local coverage her work has gotten. This discussion is not about an article for her brand but about an article about Maria as a fashion designer in the Richmond, VA area. 204.63.44.145 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)204.63.44.145 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)— 204.63.44.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well, "too soon" is the perhaps the nominator and myself being kind. She's not notable now and you have not offered a shred of policy based reasoning why she is. The minor local coverage she netted while a student is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

delete fails gng Number of Ghits not a measure of notability. Lacks significant coverage in RS. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage listed is either unreliable, local, or firsthand/primary. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that the only keep arguments are from SPAs and not based in policy. czar 19:10, 29 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. Sandstein 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Allott[edit]

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

I suspect this is a puff piece written by a paid agent. In any case I do not think he is notable. Many links are dead and many, if any, of the WP:RS do not actually refer to him. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These two appear to be substantial independent RS: [42] [43]. Actually the second one may be a blog. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails gng the sourcing just does not measure up. Is the term WP:Coatrack?Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 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. Sandstein 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian University Rankings[edit]

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

Misleading list, which serves little purpose at its current state. Only very few institutes are listed compared to the number rated and the ratings are not kept up to date. Sources are missing and one column (QS) appears to be repeated, but for two years no one was willing to do the effort. There might also be a copyright issue with copying an entire list from a source (ETA: per WP:CIL). Muhandes (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's incomplete. I'm not sure incompleteness or need of update is a reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I was going to bring this up on the Copyright board, as this does seem to run afoul of WP:CIL as it contains numerous complete lists that were based on subjective creative criteria, thus are a form of creative expression by the list compilers. Category:Rankings of universities and colleges in India contains several similar lists that were completely copied from their sources. Crow^Caw 17:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless selective list with questionable sourcing. Wikpedia is also not a university enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Keep - this encyclopaedia has articles on the Ivy League and the Russell Group, so cannot it not have the same for Indian universities?Vorbee (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article must be assessed on its own merits of suitability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above states These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. I kinda think it is valid. Keep if, and only if, we have no better article on the pecking order of Indian Universities. Yes it is pretty crap...but it is better than nothing. ~~Merge~~ into that better article if it exists. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete highly misleading list and misusing the credibility of Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 19:26, 25 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. So Why 20:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Ennis McLean[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON biography of a singer, notable only as an as yet non-winning contestant in a reality show whose season just commenced ten days ago. As always, the simple fact of being a competitor on a reality show is not an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia -- she needs to either win the competition at the end of the series, or subsequently go on to pass WP:NMUSIC in exactly the same way as any other singer, to get a standalone WP:BLP about her. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable 13-year-old singer (unless he is still 12).John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage. Best known for role in The Voice Kids (UK TV series) but not mentioned in article, thus there is no suitable redirect target. czar 19:04, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OVW World Heavyweight Radio Championship[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and per Nikki311, whose rationale when prodding was "No evidence this is even a real championship. It isn't listed on OVW's roster page with the other current champions. Either way, it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources." - TheMagnificentist 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 16:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable title. If the title becomes regular, maybe. Right now, No Notable and Too Soon --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:47, 23 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 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Crittenden[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E of a political aide, whose only stated claim of notability is that he wrote the first draft (but not the finished product) of a single piece of legislation. And he isn't the subject of the article's only source, either, but merely gives brief soundbite about a different piece of legislation than the one he worked on. It's not entirely impossible that Crittenden might have a stronger claim of notability and better sourceability than the creator actually attempted to show (it was created by Ottawahitech, a user who has been permanently editblocked for persistently doing the bare minimum needed to show that their choice of topics existed, rather than actually putting in enough work to demonstrate that the topics were notable) -- so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access than I've got to US media coverage circa 1993 can put in the work to salvage it, but what's here isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. Editor Ottawahitech should not have been banned; they identified many notable topics and there is nothing wrong with starting stub articles. I added a bit to the article and see other sources available. --do ncr am 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech did not correctly identify many notable topics; their habit was to create an article about absolutely anything and anyone who could be verified by one newspaper article as merely existing, without regard to Wikipedia's established standards of how much notability or sourcing need to be shown to justify an article. There's nothing inherently wrong with creating stubs, true, but even a short stub still has to actually contain a credible claim of notability in the first place. And so far, the only new sources you've added are primary ones, not reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I have the impression that Robert Wood Johnson Fellows (now a redirect to a new section in Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) are a fairly big deal, but there's not much yet in Wikipedia about the program. Crittenden was one of those, and had other fellowships/awards not yet in the article. --do ncr am 18:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article was expanded after being nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 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 03:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few mentions in passing - not much of a political career. Granted, he was more of an aide/advisor, but those are simply not things that make one notable, not without in-depth coverage and that I don't see. However, it is worth pointing out that his full name was "Robert A. Crittenden", and the current informal "Bob" name may be obscuring some results. Bob is the name that we can see he is cited in the media on the few occasions he was asked for comment; Robert A. Crittenden / RA Crittenden is the name he used for his scientific works. Still, Google Scholar suggests his impact is low - he has been a co-author on a number of papers, but their citations are mid-20s at best, most of them got very few cites. As such, he does not seem to pass WP:PROF. I couldn't find any information on significant awards, or any recognition of him as a significant scholar/etc. I am afraid I have to agree with the nominator here.: this is not an encyclopedic person per sources we have so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete background aides only pass notability if we have reliable source coverage of them of a level to, and we lack that for Crittenden.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the above mentions of Ottawahitech I began to look into some of his contributions. I came across the article on Anne-Marie Ambert and was ready to nominate it for deletion. However I did some background research and realized she has written books like The Effect of Children on Parents that has over 300 listed citations on Google scholar. She is not notable for her condominium role, but she might be notable as an academic. I began editing the article to reflect this fact, but there is a need for more work to be done. The article has been tagged since August 2015 as needing better sourcing, so tagging articles in this matter is not working. These sub-standard article that focus on non-notable issues in possibly notable people's lives are a reason Ottawahitech was banned. At least 4 articles he created are in process of being prod deleted right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone might want to have a look at Dave Brown (columnist), I doubt he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 28 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. Sandstein 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asoka Wijetilleke[edit]

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

The article fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. The references are simply mentions in passing, confirming his existence. The investigations that he was a part he wasn't even the lead officer. No evidence of any individual notability. Dan arndt (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 26 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. Given the lack of opposition to the keep assertions, I am closing this Afd. Would suggest waiting for some time to allow editors to improve the article before renominating this for deletion. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Owen[edit]

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

I don't see what makes this theatre actor notable. Few mentions in passing, niche interview, I am afraid that doesn't suffice for WP:CREATIVE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as I believe she passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR having had prominent roles in notable productions namely 400 shows of the West End London production of Les Miserables as Eponine, also Cossette, and also having played Dorothy in the Royal Shakespeare Company production of Wizard of Oz.There is significant coverage in the Yorkshire Post here which is a regional newspaper, will do a long search later Atlantic306 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- After a long search found 3 or 4 regional news sources about her in the Wizard of Oz production but could not find much about her Les Miserables performances so changing to weak keep Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 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 00:52, 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 03:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to just satisfy criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR as a replacement Eponine in West End Les Mis and lead role in Wizard of Oz at a major UK regional theatre, as mentioned above. Badly written article though. Boneymau (talk) 00:44, 22 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. Sandstein 06:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SCH-B550[edit]

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

WP:MILL cellphone. Article has no references; notability has not been established.

Deprodded by one "SMSNG" with the edit summary "Samsung is notable" without addressing the concern in the PROD rationale. —Keφr 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a listing of every product which has ever been offered for sale by a major company. No reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of this product have been presented to support notability, and I did not find such in a brief search. Edison (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It exists but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of sourcing. Delete seems fine. --Izno (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, given that it does exist, maybe there's some scope for a List of Samsung B-series phones--it looks like the other phones in the series, and possibly the majority/entirety of Template:Samsung phones, could be or should be a list rather than individual, trivial or non-notable articles. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting device, but not notable. Seems to have been available in Korea only. Shritwod (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite its existence, the device doesn't seem notable. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 01:32, 29 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 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Whitehurst[edit]

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

After several declines at AfC, article was simply moved to mainspace. Other than trivial mentions, advertisements, and non-independent references, not a single in-depth source currently. And searches turned up virtually no coverage, let alone any in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on improving the article, but if the requirements for notability are "major reviews" that won't be one of the things I can change. There are no specific criteria for what is a "major review" and this author's work won't be reviewed by a major publication because of the nature of the topic. I didn't disregard the editors comments. The criteria being set for declining publication of the page wasn't justified. There are several other authors who have pages on Wikipedia who do not meet this requirement. She's published 10 books, most of which are best sellers in the category on Amazon.com. Her latest release was a #1 new release in it's category. She's won literary awards and had her work featured in Publisher' Weekly. I believe this argument for deletion is invalid and is directly related to the topics she writes about.

Can you please provide examples of what you are asking for to provide proof of notability?

Internetgal (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Internetgal, you can read a more detailed explanation of what's required for an author to qualify for a WP entry here: WP:NAUTHOR. Or, WP:NPERSON is another option. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some reviews of her books: The Magic of Trees Review PW and Magical Fashionista Review PW. These can be used as Reliable sources, Internetgal. But I do wish I could find more than just Publishers Weekly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid I don't see the sources here to establish notability. For next time I can only advise making use of the guidance offered by AfC reviewers and editors at the Help Desk on how to meet the criteria for an entry in the encyclopedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources. Also, book reviews are not sufficient per WP:NOTINHERITED. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, book reviews could be enough per WP:NCREATIVE #3 but that requires notice in multiple independent periodicals, which we unfortunately haven't been able to find. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:36, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno State–Louisiana Tech football rivalry[edit]

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Rivalry is not establish via current citations. There is some routine coverage in some search results showing slight, but not significant (or national), coverage. WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteTrivial rivalry, with only local sources.TheLongTone (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD in December 2014, see here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catch, thank you. While WP:G4 applies re speedy deletion, this might be headed to WP:SNOW anyhow. Probably not worth the effort to delist and go G4. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article calls this the Battle of the Bone. Is there an actual bone (or a golden bone, or something) as a trophy or is that just a pun on "Bulldogs"? Trophy rivalries, especially ones with such an unusual trophy (see also Old Brass Spittoon and Floyd of Rosedale), are generally notable, but the article gives no indication that this is the case. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill minor sports competitive rivalry of two teams from different geographical regions who have played 13 times in all. There is a threshold for rivalry pieces, a know-it-when-ya-see-it sort of deal; this fall short, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gudgudee (TV Series)[edit]

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

Recently created unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject AussieLegend (✉) 11:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no sourcing to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:TVSHOW. In fact, there's not even enough information presented at the article to determine if it was an episodic comedy series, or something more like a sketch comedy TV program... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 20:03, 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 Jacobin (magazine). (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Too soon." Article dePRODded with reason "Journal edited by notable editors, stable-mate of notable title, some external sourcing, worth keeping". However, external sourcing is not independent (magazine of publisher) and that the editors are notable or that the foundation publishes another notable journal is irrelevant. Journal has publishesd just one issue recently, too new to have become notable yet. In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New publication that fails WP:NJOURNALS. The references present are not WP:IS attesting to notability either. Maybe it'll become notable but right now it is way WP:TOOSOON. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacobin (magazine). WP:TOOSOON Jacobin launched this more scholarly journal last month, May 2017. The argument for redirect is that Wikipedia can be a useful place to check out a journal you've never heard of. A newborn publication can be notable, of course, but only if it is hailed by multiple, reliable in-depth sources. Let's wish this one well and tuck it into bed with Jacobin until it has had a chance to grow up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacobin (magazine); definitely WP:TOOSOON, possibly WP:NOTINHERIT as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:17, 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 merge to Rachel, Nevada. So Why 09:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little A'Le'Inn[edit]

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

No conceivable notability for this motel, mention in two shows is not enough justification, and there is nothing else. WP is not a travel guide. There seem to be no substantial independent sources DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Rachel, Nevada. This has received some coverage, but it's borderline in terms of notability. Merging can improve the merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. Here are some sources: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "No conceivable notability" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a small local restaurant with an amusing name. If there's content to be merged to Rachel, Nevada it can be done so, but I don't support any history-merge or redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:18, 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. So Why 08:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asheesh Misra[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability or biographical notability. Google search turns up no independent sources about him. Article has no references and has missing sections. Promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google might not be any good for this, as any sources are likely in Hindi. A couple of refs have been added, and the first one seems to be significant coverage (based on google translate), though I am not sure if it is a reliable source, as I do not know the source. The second is a newspaper cutting Pdf, but I cannot translate it so I can't verify the reliability or coverage of that source. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Northamerica1000:~~ @Insertcleverphrasehere: I am not satisfied with the reliability of the first source and I don't think if we can use it to establish notabiltiy, as per this it looks like a personal web site or something where anyone can post their stories and the second source reads like an advertisement. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: I think you meant to ping Insertcleverphrasehere. I only provided deletion sorting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opps thank you for pointing it out. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. I can't tell you how much I hate the ISBN in the body of the article: these are commercial bar code numbers used to generate and track book sales, ergo, minus one star for crass promotionalism. Carrite (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not represent 3rd party coverage in reliable sources. This article does not even pass GNG let alone any more specific criteria for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 28 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. Sandstein 10:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Center[edit]

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

Sources largely have nothing to do with the center itself. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. It is not a hoax but does not rise to being worth an article. --Lockley (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Building is not notable for its modern use, but clearly is historically significant as the first Warner Bros theater. It was easy to find sources, such as [49], [50], and [51] - not a very thorough WP:Before. It is mentioned in Warner Bros (as the first theater), which I have now linked. I'm surprised this isn't on the NHRP. The article needs better sourcing and cleanup, not deletion. MB 05:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: Those sources are about the theater, not the shopping center on its site. The theater is very likely notable, but the article barely mentions the theater. I would not be opposed to an article on the theater. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The theater has been recreated as part of the complex on the same site. I don't see a reason for a different article. The current complex is the modern evolution of the historic theater. Source #1 and #3 focus on the theater. Source #2 does not. I was picking sources about the theater to emphasize the historic nature, but there are other sources like #2 about the whole complex. Anyway, the two are inter-twined and I think this article should be kept. Adding more info on the theater would certainly be an improvement. I agree that without the theater/history, this would be a [wp:mill] shopping center. The article should simply be expanded. MB 17:36, 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 01:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tail is trying to wag the dog. The theater is clearly notable (I might create that article myself), but the center can't inherit notability from it. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not a big fan of relisting AfDs more than twice but I think we may be inching towards a consensus here. Let's see what happens.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 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 in one form or another. Ad Orientem and I had hoped that further relists could clarify the preferred way to keep this material but unfortunately despite three relists it's still only clear that the material should be kept but not in what form. I'm thus closing it as keep and not "no consensus" because the latter implies that there had been an equally strong case for deletion.

Merging or renaming can be discussed at the article's talk page. So Why 08:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is based almost entirely on primary sources about a doctrine of a minor religious group, and was probably originally created as a coatrack for the 'controversy' about the Watch Tower Society's 'association with the UN' as an NGO associated with the UN's Department of Public Information. A previous AfD was raised in 2006, with a result of Keep. However, the reasons given were essentially that 'both organisations are notable'. Notability of the organisations is not in question; the doctrine is not particularly notable. If deleted, notable aspects about the doctrine can be merged into Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, and possibly History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "of a minor religious group," mmmmmm, "membership of 8.3million" minor?, i suppose Mormons are also a minor religious group, allbeit with a membership of around 15 million, a slightly larger minor group? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mormons are indeed also a minor religious group. Is this not obvious? JWs make up less than 0.4% of Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the minor tertiary institutions of oxford, cambridge and harvard that only have enrollments of around 20,000...

Coolabahapple (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that JW and Mormon members are in some way 'elite'? Or are you just making an irrelevant observation about something that is not directly comparable?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

or that the word "minor" is one of those words that can be subjective and a matter of opinion?Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please say something relevant about the AfD or go away.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I see no reason to delete this, but it does seem like excessive coverage of a minor theological doctrine. I support a 1-2 paragraph treatment of this topic, in an article on politically-relevant theological views of the Jehovah's witnesses. Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses has NPOV issues as a merge target, Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs would probably work. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unclear how major of a doctrine this is. It seems minor, which suggests merge unless more secondary sources are found. However, the doctrine is already mentioned at Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, and perhaps that page would be a better merge destination. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REname to Jehovah's Witnesses attitude to the United Nations, which is a better description of the content. This seems to be an example of where their doctrine varies over the years, a matter they do not willingly admit. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article will not address the fact that it is not sufficiently notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, okay, this is one of the fundamental beliefs of jws (it just doesn't come up when they are preaching door-to door:)), being integral with their view/prophecies about the destruction of all religions and organisations (except them of course:)) that they believe are in opposition to Jehovah (God) and the setting up of God's kingdom on the Earth. Agree that the majority of sources are primary and there does appear to be an undue emphasis on the UN Department of Public Information issue, that really should only be a one or two sentence mention. The article should either be kept and improved with more non-jw sources (difficult as there is a dearth (love that word, dearth, yeeaaahh...) of such sources) or merged/redirected to Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses with a 1, 2 line mention at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JW view of the United Nations is already mentioned at both the suggested articles. Whether further information is warranted merits discussion at both those articles and/or other related articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons also believe that when Jesus Christ returns he will reign on earth as the literal king, and human governments will have an end. I can source this. However to go from that statement to then write about what this means for existing governments needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. We need such sources, not just quote mining from primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; IMHO it is sufficiently sourced and notable. Merging it to either "beliefs" or "history" would not be desirable, as it is particularly the changes in the beliefs which are of encyclopaedic value. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it sufficiently sourced? The notability guideline says articles should be based on secondary sources. This article is based almost entirely on primary sources. Other than the 'exposé' section, the only primary source in the article was before either Jehovah's Witnesses or the United Nations even existed. The JW view of the UN has been fleshed out at this article—based only on primary sources—in order to 'support' the 'exposé' section. Most sources on the subject of JW views of the UN are either primary sources or unacceptable sources such as blogs and forums.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you count the United Nations citations (as well as JWs) as primary sources, it also has two sources from a broadsheet newspaper. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also has two sources from a broadsheet newspaper... in the exposé section. I already said that.

Also, your recent addition at the article seems to be a good example of why it is isn't really a good idea to form article titles by just joining two things with "and". It is unhelpful for an article to just be a collection of interactions between the two things.

Your addition has no relevance to the section you put it in. The only way for your recent addition to be salvaged would be to rename the last section to something like Jehovah's Witnesses interactions with the UN, reduce the 'exposé', and add your addition to that section. But since the article is not notable, it's probably not worth the effort. JWs are not the only religious group to have lodged appeals with the UN Human Rights Committee, and it is undue weight to have an article on that basis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 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 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT REMOVE this valuable information. It is imperative that this available. It has saved lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.132.15 (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the article has 'saved lives' is neither established nor relevant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it Wikipedia's purpose to 'right great wrongs'. The criteria for inclusion is that it is notable based on reliable secondary sources, not that one or more editors believe its inclusion is important.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only section that isn't based on primary sources is trivial and irrelevant to the main section, which is based entirely on primary JW documents. It's a research paper outside our purview. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While I believe it has some use, it isn't worth it's own page, and should be merged into a relevant article. Also needs to be updated (Penton's latest edition of Apocalypse Delayed would be useful, as he talks about it) and probably shortened. Vyselink (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While consensus is at this time in favor of keeping this material in one form or another but not in favor of keeping a separate article, I'm relisting this to discuss where to merge this content to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but I wouldn't object to a sensible merge – I suggest Jehovah's Witnesses and governments is not too far off). Firstly in my opinion many of the JW sources are not WP:PRIMARY. Their problem is that they are neither independent nor third party. So, to provide a neutral point of view we must balance them with other points of view or resort to sources which seem to be independent and reliable. Apart from the Guardian, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses and What the Watchtower Society Doesn't Want You to Know: A Glimpse Behind the Walls of the Kingdom Halls might provide suitable material that seems to be independently (and hopefully reliably) published. They both discuss the UN aspect at length. However, in neither case does the writing look dispassionate to me. The topic of the JW position concerning the UN is notable. The issue is do we have suitable material on which to base a balanced article without resorting to WP:SYNTHESIS and I think AFD is not the answer to this question. Thincat (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article—should be deleted? I think there are enough RS and I think the JW attitude towards the UN is a separate issue from their attitudes towards other governments. That is because of the "one world government" connotations of the UN. It is true that many primary sources are used, but these are JW publications. A publication like The Watchtower is a reliable source for what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Roches (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it hadn't occurred to me that including the UN alongside "governments" would be politically insensitive in some quarters. Thincat (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the objection to including it on Jehovah's Witnesses and governments is. It seems like a better target than the ones I suggested earlier in the thread. The details can be included in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JW publications are certainly reliable in the context of presenting what JWs believe, but they are not suitable for indicating that their view of the UN is notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffro77 We have two articles in a reputable newspaper (cited) and two extended sections in non-JW books (above) all on the issue so it exceeds the GNG criteria. This doesn't mean we have to have an article, of course, it just means we may presume the topic is suitable for its own article. To my mind the strongest argument against an article might be that we do not have adequate material for writing an NPOV article because the material is too polarised. I don't think I agree with this but it is a reasonable point to make and the article needs to be handled very sensitively and carefully. Thincat (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki Well, I don't know but JW seem to be against governments and some people may regard the UN as an attempt at a super-government while other may think it is nothing of the sort. So, its inclusion in a "list" of governments might seem NPOV. Thincat (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments would be better than the earlier suggestions for merger targets, IMHO, if this article is not deemed worthy of a separate page. The UN is an association of governments, so the topic fits well enough to be covered in that article. – Fayenatic London 07:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a tricky one. The 2001 Guardian article definitely counts one to GNG. Independence of other sources is lacking, but this is a rather unique and pervasive policy position of the sect that is well documented here and noteworthy. Ultimately, WP is improved by this piece, although a second Guardian-type article would go far to cementing Keep status. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing so notable about this JW doctrine that warrants its own article. The level of available secondary sources is certainly suitable for inclusion of the JW view of the UN in relevant articles such as Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and maybe History of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Guardian article only addresses an exposé of what is considered a 'hypocritical' 'relationship' with the UN. Whilst from the JW perspective, the UN is an evil terrible 'beast' (and this is the reason for the Guardian article), a religious organisation subscribing to the UN DPI is not especially notable. As such, the assertion that the exposé would warrant an article would seem to be undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not a notable entry to the everyday Christian, for Jehovahs Witnesses is a huge turnaround from previous doctrine. If merged into the parent article many may miss this very important point. Please leave it as stand alone. Seeing it on a website such as Wikipedia where everyone goes for information may make someone ask important questions about what they have been taught as fact since the joining of the UN is kept secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writeswords (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles effect on JW's is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Their leaders are responsible for what they know about the religion. Vyselink (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability to JWs is not the benchmark for inclusion, and it is not Wikipedia's responsibility or purpose to 'advise' members of a particular denomination about 'secrets'. (And association with the UN DPI is not the same 'joining the UN'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I rarely relist discussions for a third time but what looked like a near consensus to merge last week seems to have moved towards a Keep. So I am going to hope that a third relist will add enough clarity to allow us to close this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines. Due to their religious based refusal to vote, the political power of Jehovah's Witnesses is very minor, as opposed to Mormons who are officially encouraged to vote by Church leaders and politically control one state in the US and have very strong power in some other states, while also being a large portion of the population in several nations in Oceania. That said, the Jehovah's Witnesses have had a large incluence on religious freedom jurisprudence in the US, Canada and some other countries. However the real issue here is that this article is a content fork way to far down. This is basically a sub-set of Jevhovah's Witnesses beliefs, which is an article that might be legitimately divided. However the next step down would be to form an article on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on government and demand neutral, scholarly coverage. This is a difficult thing to undertake, since Jehovah's Witnesses views on government have been in part used to justify their being banned and persecuted in many countries, and it is a subject that lends attracts people misrepresenting its content. Lastly comparing the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses numbers does not work well. The LDS Church counts all children who were blessed until their ninth birthday, and counts all people who have been baptized unless they are excommunicated or have their names formally removed from the records of the Church. This accounts for about 95% of Mormons, or maybe a higher percentage. However it counts people who based on other studies do not view themselves as Mormons but have just not bothered to formally remove themselves from the Church records. On the other hand the Jehovah's Witnesses only report active publishers, which covers those people who actively engage in propagating the religion on a regular basis. There are many more people loosely affiliated with the movement who are not counted in this number.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 29 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. So Why 08:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal & Pearce[edit]

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

Despite a wealth of references, I can see none that convey notability or get even close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. Many listings and track listings, several nominations for awards but no evidence of a record in the country's charts etc. Several daughter articles have been spawned off the back of this article including separate articles on discography and individual albums, none of which, I suspect, are notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, pending a refutation of my reasoning. - They have been nominated twice for the South African Music Awards. Musical notability guidelines provide that nomination for a major award is a qualifying criterion. So it really comes down to whether the South African Music Awards are of the same standing as the American Grammy Awards. The Delete argument would appear to turn on saying that national awards only count depending on the size of the country (and South Africa is a medium-sized country, not a small country). I am ready for an argument that South African nominations don't count, but for now I am inclined to read the notability guideline literally.
Comment - If this article is deleted, the daughter articles can mostly go A9. If this article is kept, we can have a merge/keep debate on each, and I think some should be merged and some kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By the way, I am beginning to think that I am a deletionist, but, if so, I am a deletionist who nonetheless favors "strict construction" of specific notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment response - Robert McClenon- I did look at South African Music Awards to see whether that helps in clarifying the applicability of our policies - it doesn't. I tried the web-site which left me with the strong impression that anybody in South Africa can be nominated, including self-nominated, for an award. There is then some verification and initial adjudication process which produces a list of "Nominees". If included on that short list of nominees, I would expect to see a status of "Nominee" in the article table and not "Nominated". If this is the correct interpretation, then no notability can attend upon the status "nominated" although the winner of an award might well be considered notable as per the BAFTAs. Grammy etc. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 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 01:02, 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. So Why 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ziosk[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability. References are mostly advertorials or PR or mentions-in-passing or are references to the company or industry. Fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (please note that I created this page, but have no affiliation with the company). The company has in excess of 170K of the devices in the United States, the devices are just sold in a non-traditional model. In regards to the comment by HighKing, most of the citations are from respectable news organizations, and I will fix the couple of instances where press releases have been cited today. Also, the article is about the company, in addition to their table ordering tablets, not just the devices themself. Daylen (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the citations which are press releases. Daylen (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too am not affiliated with the company but the sources speak for themselves: The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS, etc. I see only PDF's as possible PR, but the rest is reliable. Don't understand why it was nominated in the first place?--Biografer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Biografer Take a look at the WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. It's not just that the sources must be "independent" (and nobody is saying that somehow there's a connection between the some publications and Ziosk) but they must be "intellectually independent" and these ones are not. For example, the Forbes article (ignoring for now that it is in their "sites"/"blogs" section and therefore fails the criteria for establishing notability) is a classic advertorial and we see this from Forbes (here at AfD) all the time - it is a common "customer success story" dressed up as an ad and that "article" has been reprinted and republished in other publications (again, classic advertorial behaviour). The purported "independent" article includes customer interviews, photos, complete "look how easy it is to use" descriptions, mild put-downs of "other payment systems" and why Ziosk is better, the financial reasons for restaurants to chose Ziosk, quotes from company officers. Hard to see what they've left out barring a download link for a brochure. The NYT article has one small paragraph where they mention Ziosk in passing with a quote from a company officer - it is not in-depth coverage and Ziosk is not the topic of the article. The latimes article is regurgitating a PR announcement from Olive Garden - fails WP:ORGIND and is not independent. The nrn.com article is from an announcement made by Red Robin. The announcement was made as the Greenwood Village, Colo.-based casual-dining operator reported a 3.6-percent increase in same-store sales for its fourth quarter ended Dec. 29, including a 1.2-percent increase in traffic. The Washington Post article is an advertorial complete with quotations from exec at Chili's and Ziosk. Bloomberg articles are usually advertorials and this one is no exception - even uses the "5 ways Ziosk is great for your business" style of formatting. The Sacramento Bee article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it only mentions Ziosk in passing and also because the article relies on the opinion of a "Tom Caporaso, CEO of Clarus Commerce" who cannot be regarded as a reliable source. The CBS Sacramento article meets the criteria for establishing notability. Finally, the eater.com article is a repeat/summary of the CBS article so is not a new independent source. So in my opinion, only one good source that meets the criteria for establishing notability out of eleven. That isn't enough. Hopefully now you've a better understanding of the reasons why the article was nominated in the first place. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- highly promotional for TableTop Media; the content does not belong here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 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 06:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some older sources talk about Ziosk in the context of hotels/etc. Anyway, the tablet-menus in a restaurant seem notable. I am not sure if this particular one deserves an article, but honestly I couldn't find much about potential competitors. Still, to reduce spam/advertising concerns, a rewrite into a tablet menu or such could be considered (PS. I noticed we have Table ordering tablet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 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 01:02, 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Express[edit]

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

Possible WP:HOAX. Search found no evidence for the newspaper. Not listed at: http://naiindia.com/mi.html scope_creep (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless there is other deletion criteria present: It [is] real, but as for whether the information in the article is true, I don't know. El ₵id, El ₵ampeador ‡ _{Talk} 18:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment Well, the Indian government doesn't think of this as a hoax.[52] The paper exists and has quite a decent circulation, if the Indian government's circulation figures are to be believed. But this is not to say that every newspaper with a decent circulation needs to be kept. Lourdes 19:46, 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 00:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That site looks as though it was put up yesterday. Certainly they seemed to have come into existence on Jan 19, 2015, but doesn't seem to reflect on what you would find as a normal web based newspaper. Seems to be orientated towards the yoof hence the look and feel. I think we can close. Withdrawn by Nominator Clearly a real paper. scope_creep (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that ref, which is a start for this wee micro article. scope_creep (talk) 14:36, 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. As mentioned last week by Ad Orientem, this could have been closed as a no consensus last week. Proceeding with that closure; no prejudice against an early renomination – although I would suggest a discussion towards redirecting the article to the suggested pages before taking this up at Afd again. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation of culture[edit]

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

This feels like a personal essay and doesn't seem to be getting any better anytime soon. At this point, I think we should just blow it up and start over. I suggest that we delete or possibly stubbify this version, but allow editors to create a new article on this topic. TheDracologist (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to social change or culture change. This is pretty deep in essay territory, so any merger in a conventional sense wouldn't be much less work than just a de novo expansion of the target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there already is a merge discussion here. Discussion should take place there. --Fixuture (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The linked merge "discussion" has gone eight weeks without a single participant other than the proposer. I suppose that means it could be viewed as uncontroversial at this point, and simply be done by an editor who is so motivated. But it also shouldn't be a procedural bar to a deletion discussion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Fixuture, no one has opposed your merge suggestion, perhaps you could bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, wait another week, and then Be bold. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about the merge discussion. Thanks for directing me to somewhere that I can attract more attention to it. TheDracologist (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A user who has not participated herein has opposed the merge at Talk:Culture change
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The topic is certainly notable. The article is not very good, and frankly, if somebody wanted to WP:TNT this and start a new one, it wouldn't be bad, but unless someone wants to rewrite it from scratch, merge or no merge, this is still a notable topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to social change or culture change. WP:TNT: we don't need overlapping articles covering similar ground. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and, most likely redirect per discussion elsewhere. Notable topic even if quality poor. Montanabw^(talk) 16:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came close to closing this as a no-consensus given that opinions are all over the place. But let's give it another week and hope for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 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) —MRD 20 14 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McEwen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No apparent notability, fails WP:GNG, formerly held a few unreliable, non-BLP sources, which have since been removed. Article feels like an advertisment and should be 'deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 20:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub for neutrality but keep. The article definitely needs sourcing repair and a cleanup for WP:NPOV, but there are credible notability claims — including being appointed to the Order of Canada, which is always valid grounds for an article in and of itself so long as there's some genuine substance and sourcing provided for what they did to get there. Then there's the philanthropy thing — which admittedly this article misses as written, but our article on the McEwen School of Architecture will make clearer. Article needs work, yes, but the base notability is there. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 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 04:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as Bearcat notes, this needs to be rewritten. In addition to the Order of Canada, a quick google search reveals that this guy is one of the top 100 richest people in Canada http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/richest-people/rich-100-rob-mcewen/ and has been the subject of some significant news coverage, e.g. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/rob-mcewen-mining-magnate-with-a-vision/article546293/?page=all There should be no problem finding good, verifiable info on this guy. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Order of Canada is indicative of notability. The current version of the article is somewhat neutral, while sourcing has been improved. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 25 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) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Shchelkovo Highway police station attack[edit]

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

Nearly 10 months removed, I think it can be determined that this attack is a WP:NOTNEWS event. WP:ROUTINE coverage was sustained for about 3 days (mostly to mention ISIL's claim of responsibility) but no WP:LASTING impact has been established. Yes, this was covered by the media but according to WP:GEOSCOPE there needs to be a long-term affect on the area. This was tragic but please stick to policy. A redirect to a relevant list is also another option. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The premise is wrong. For instance, the wikipedia entry includes a WP:RS from a Swiss newspaper from November 2016, i.e. there was international coverage even 3 months after the attack.XavierItzm (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event was widely discussed in the Russian media. Moreover, this attack was reported by BBC, Washington Post, Reuters. The article has this international WP:RS. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per others, seems to be clear it meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I guess WP:NOTNEWS is a dead policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 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. So Why 07:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Aradhya[edit]

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

WP:NMOTORSPORT. The driver who even haven't contested in any series other than karting. Which mean he is can't be considered as professional now. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Corvus tristis Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note to any reviewing admin This article has been previously Proded and is therefor ineligible for "soft delete." -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 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. So Why 07:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June Chu[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E - she does not appear to be notable as an academic, and Yelpgate or whatever it's called isn't nearly significant enough to make her notable now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:PERP. There is no indication that the current scandal has any lasting notability. Ordinarily for an academic at this level I would suggest to keep the article but recenter it on her academic contributions, but Yale's story from her appointment a year ago doesn't mention any contributions that would be notable for us. Being dean, or former dean, is certainly not enough; we only give automatic notability as academic administrators to heads of whole universities. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clear per BLP1E. She was not notable prior to the Yelp events, and still isn't. 104.163.153.14 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E is correct. She is neither a movie nor restaurant critic; the entry is simply snarky and without merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.192.253 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This doesn't strike me as a BLP1E case at all. Being the dean of a residential college in a notable university and being a lecturer (?) in psychology courses at that university both have some independent worth. The controversy created by her comments and her firing is only part of her notability. I'm generally in favor of keeping BLP articles if they aren't derivative of another article of an event that they're involved in. There isn't such an article yet. 73.61.20.143 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC) — 73.61.20.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. She has held several academic appointments. Her extra-curricular writings serve as a reminder to all of us on how not to conduct ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.109.66 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 96.233.109.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was convert to disambiguation page. So Why 07:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koloma[edit]

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

Too short to be useful as a standalone article, and completely unreferenced. I'm not even entirely sure that it exists because it doesn't have an ISO 15924 code, although it is mentioned here and there online. Unless better references are found, it should be at most mentioned in the Kokborok article. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources on google books, so it's conceivable that someone might create a decent article at some point. Until that happens, Kokborok language#Script is the place where this should (and already is) mentioned, so redirecting there would be sensible. However, in addition to the script, there's also Koloma, California and none of the two seems to be a WP:PTOPIC, so Koloma should be a disambiguation page per WP:2DABS. – Uanfala 21:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a dab page until such time as there is more than a one-line article about the script. There's the script (which can be kept verbatim as a dab entry), Koloma, California and a district of Conakry, Guinea, plus a See also entry (Coloma (disambiguation)). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe Koloma, California should be a redirect to Coloma, California. That change may affect any disambiguation page. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. They're two different, though related, places. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources provided. I see primarily references to a non-notable song called "kokbrok" by a band Koloma when I search "koloma kokborok". [53] References such as [54] that I would expect to mention it do not. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:25, 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.

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=maria+fernanda+Londo%C3%B1o+richmond+va&oq=maria+fernanda+londo%C3%B1o+richmon&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i60.5503j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[2] ttp://www.richmond.com/fashion-contest-raises-nearly-for-christmas-mother-fund-grants/article_e78044a7-84cf-589c-ba58-7330497bbc80.html

[3] ttps://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/photos-runway-2016-emerge-at-vcu/Content?oid=2329044

[4] ttp://www.hercampus.com/school/vcu/vcu-pop-fashion-show

[5] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=maria+fernanda+Londo%C3%B1o+richmond+va&oq=maria+fernanda+londo%C3%B1o+richmon&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i60.5503j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=maria+fernanda+Londo%C3%B1o+fashio

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]