Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 June	25 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 Speedy delete. Log shows that this happened quite some time ago: 2018-03-08T08:41:33 Jimfbleak talk contribs deleted page Alex Adegboye (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank). (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Adegboye[edit]

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

Seems to be somebody just putting his own resume up on Wikipedia. Yakushima (talk) 01:30, 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. Sandstein 11:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer LeGuilloux[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and GNG. Her results: http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00004209.htm Hergilei (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet WP:SKATE #2 ref1 ref2. Article could expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NSKATE #2 says she has to have competed in the free skate, which she didn't in the 2003 world juniors. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether she meets NSPORTS or not isn't the issue. Per VPP decision, NSPORTS neither replaces nor supersedes GNG. Also, WP:SPORTBASIC says that multiple sources should cover this person. So far, she is not covered by multiple third-party sources, like books and news articles. Also, it's a person with very little remarkable record and very little records, TBH. Also, keeping this article violates WP:NPF (part of BLP) as she's not publically known. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Healey (autism activist)[edit]

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

Regular notable does not make him 100% notable, notability is solely restricted to local notability. National coverages only apply as a alleged social media victim which does not make him inheritantly notable overall. Master Cool (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite a pretty good attempt to promote, the subject is not notable. Super Tomas (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Master Cool and Super Tomas are Confirmed socks of Donnie Park, the nominator in the first AfD. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Donnie Park.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely clear of the point here. It suggests that this page is a self promotion piece. The article reads in a fairly neutral fashion with a good range of independent sources. If you read the edit history there is no evidence of repeated attempts to edit this into a promotion piece.Pstansbu (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's one of those people who is trying to get noticed, when notable people don't have to try. But he's had enough coverage that I think Wikipedia should have an article about him. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kevin is not a well known Advocate outside of his local community. Most of his work has been self published, and with his resignation from his role at the National Autistic Society, he has no national position or position of responsibility. In my view he is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhendry94 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe his holding a "national position or position of responsibility" has anything to do with notability in it's own right and, therefore, the fact he no longer holds this position does not diminish his notability as seems to be suggested here. Pstansbu (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it feels like there is enough coverage of his life to warrant keeping. Even where he has originally been involved in production of book and film this has been covered on sites such as Express and ITV which suggests reasonable notability. Whilst not major articles these seem long enough to be considered non-trivial. These add to the range of coverage that was discussed when the article was previously nominated for deletion. His receipt of a British Citizens award seems worthy of mention, whilst these awards aren't massively well known and wouldn't warrant notability if the only factor, they add to an overall picture that this page should be kept. Pstansbu (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think sufficient sourcing exists and moreover I'm not a fan of allowing sockpuppets to get their way. Pinging @Bbb23: to ask him to investigate the suspicious involvement of Ryanhendry94 in this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition I've just noticed Ryanhendry94 has posed a question on the talk page regarding allegations about bullying carried out by Kevin Healey and added links to some of the allegations made - I have just responded to that query. This might have been written entirely in good faith but could also indicate a lack of neutrality on the subject Pstansbu (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - After an AfD in 2015, result was Keep. Notability is not temporary, nor have community standards changed since then. Stop wasting our time. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Woods (producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Normally, we have deleted such articles about ordinary music producers. This one is distinction of having recorded a charted song in the UK (top 100 but not top 40). So, I'm leaning keep. Can somebody rescue this one? I don't listen to that genre of music very much, and am far from an expert. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artist is notable for producing charted recordings. He has also produced and remixed for many other artists (who are also distinct and notable) and there are a lot of pages that link to the article. Deleting the article would cause inconvenience with removing the many links to it.
Lazz R (talk) 11:10, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton Hall (Tufts University)[edit]

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

Another building on another university. Almost solely primary sources. No indication that this particular university structure passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think references provided are quite enough to establish a notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, I'd call it quite frivolous nomination for article, existing from 2006. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually the "article" has been a redirect for the past 7 years. But thanks for the misrepresentation. And I'm not sure which of the trivial mentions or primary sources you think equates to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable with citations given. Smartyllama (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Well written and referenced. As always, room for expansion. But that goes for any article here. Why the piece was nominated for Afd I can understand. The building is not one of the Great Pyramids or the Tower of London, or even here State side Independence Hall. On the other hand, what the nominator may be overlooking is the importance of the building, and to the surrounding area, of Tufts University. I am sure we all agree that Tufts University is a notable entity. As such, it has its own article here. This piece Eaton Hall (Tufts University) could be easily incorporated and redirected to the Tufts page with no questions asked. However, that would contribute to expanding the Tufts University article beyond what is reasonable. As our guidelines state; “…When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page”. And I think that is what happened here. A standalone page that best serves the main article Tufts University. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's well-sourced, written, and (in my view) notable. But the nomination is completely valid and thanks for doing it. --Lockley (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Burns (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Seems to have had a minor role in Garden State, but that is his most famous role. Natg 19 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have two significant roles in major productions so does not meet the guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Doran[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill biography of an army officer that does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. Sources are purely passing mentions or simply not actually about the subject at all. I was unable to find anything better with my own searches. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. Looks like another genealogy entry. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and per Hawkeye. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hawkeye7--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a NN junior officer, killed in action. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, as stated per Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67 and Peterkingiron. Kierzek (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:SOLDIER.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 30 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 per CSD G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek bin Ahmed Al Juffali[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are 404s, single line mentions, or do not mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 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 Speedy delete per CSD G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled bin Ahmed Al Juffali[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are 404s, single line mentions, or do not mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 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 redirect to Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?. I'll fix up the redirects now. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 02:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? Ek Jashn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I note that Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? — Ek Jashn was previously speedily deleted in April under G11.

Delete as not independently notable from the series, Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?.

Also delete the redirect at Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? — Ek Jashn. Neither one is useful, since the main article is shorter at Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?. --Bejnar (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this and Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? — Ek Jashn to Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?. A well known title of a new series of a popular TV serial. Check here. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:38, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amadou Toudjani[edit]

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

The athlete did not compete (DSQ) and there is no GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator - even if he actually competed it would not have been enough.PRehse (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet requirements for inclusion into the encylopedia. Fails WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and he also fails to meet WP:MANOTE. Being disqualified in the round of 64 is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:28, 30 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. Obvious speedy, self-promo for non-notable person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mixmasterz[edit]

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

No independent sources. Does not satisfy general notability or musical notability.

Already speedy-deleted once. Let's let the community decide rather than CSD-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- malformed spam. Recommend salting as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - An recording made by an unnotable music artist.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original Animation on YouTube[edit]

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

This is, with one exception, a list of animators who aren't notable enough to have their own articles, and so a list of redlinks. With no references, there is no indication that there is much prospect for expansion with real blue links. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this meets WP:GNG, and the list format is also unsatisfactory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, this doesn't fit our guidelines. Blythwood (talk) 03:42, 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 speedy keep. Television programs do not fall under NOTDIRECTORY and therefore, closing per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by SF (Australia)[edit]

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

Apart from the one original program, the remaining content found in this page is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Speedy keep. Lists of television programs are not intrinsically violations of NOTDIRECTORY. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:00, 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. No third-party sources at all. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Hamm Productions[edit]

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

No independent evidence of notability. Does not satisfy general notability or web notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had tagged for speedy deletion. A7 tag was removed. Going for AFD rather than retrying A7. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Original Animation on YouTube, by same author, which states that this channel has 4 subscribers. That isn't notability unless an independent source has observed something interesting about the production company. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No news coverage. Blythwood (talk) 03:41, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meli Melo Limited[edit]

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

AfD removed. I am not seeing the claim to notability here – Hong Kong has countless "art jamming" businesses and extracurricular art studios just like this one. Citobun (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not unique enough to separate it from other businesses of its kind, which are also not notable.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 16:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TradeEzi[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT and probably WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:40, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aanand dev[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/producer lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. Nothing of significance in Google under Aanand dev or Devanand Pathak . Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My Google results are similar to reddogsix's: no significant results under Devanand Pathak, and all significant results for Aanand dev are actually for Dev Anand. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All search results are for the actor Dev Anand. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to write for this one on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that the article was expanded after the nomination for deletion, which included the addition of sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bartholomew Basanta Miranda[edit]

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

Uncited bio stub with no real indication of notability Killer Moff (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for translation. Article is definitely in dire need of improvement — as written, it currently just states that he was a politician and doesn't even say or reference what office he ever held to earn him that title — but the article on gl: is a bit more substantial and verifies that he did hold an WP:NPOL-passing office. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added the elected offices that support WP:NPOL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Held positions in a national legislature, clearly passes notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Held positions in a national legislature. Passes WP:Politician --Enos733 (talk) 01:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Abadie-Rosier[edit]

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

Non-notable, mostly self-published doctor; no credible assertion of notability, and pretty meagre cites. Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also twice deleted at French Wikipedia - link. JohnInDC (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Not notable. The article does not make any claims to notability so there is nothing for the sources to support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:51, 30 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. Created in violation of ban or block (G5) by Beran Hunter. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamruddin Haji[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, only coverage appears to be, well, not coverage but press releases. No WP:IRS, fails WP:GNG and just about all of the Ns. Also worth noting that this is a sock creation (see also the variations of Haji Kamruddin, Servokon etc...) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article makes no substantial claim to encyclopaedic notability, being more suitable for the subject on LinkedIn etc. I am not finding anything better than the subject's inclusion in attendee lists at functions associated with his firm. (An article on the firm itself has now reappeared at Servokon Systems, courtesy of another new account.) Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding another Findsources for completeness, since this instance of the article has been created with inverted names. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Gryphons Ice Hockey Club[edit]

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

Club doesn't meet WP:GNG, previously PROD by me and restored Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article currently has no independent RSes. Searching found nothing helpful. Best found were mentions in social media. Lacks the coverage by independent reliable sources needed for WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We're talking a beer league amateur team. Period. Nuff said. Ravenswing 22:22, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Ferdynand[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. Negligible independent reliable sourcing, if any. No legitimate assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Vice Media interview and the minor porn award save this article from an A7 speedy, but PORNBIO notability is not established. The subject lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable secondary sources. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cotham Park RFC[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this is a minor amateur rugby club with no real importance. They're the most recent champion of the Gloucester 3 league, which is all the way at the bottom of the English rugby union system — the worst club doesn't get relegated because there's nowhere to get relegated to. And their website makes it clear that they take anyone from longtime players to individuals who have never played before: that's a minor amateur group for friends, not a topic that gets a Wikipedia article. A club at this level could be notable if they've gradually been relegated a long distance from past glory (imagine that a professional club went through decades of decline and ended up at the bottom level of the pyramid) or if they were the subject of special interest (e.g. a doctoral dissertation in sociology covered rugby clubs in Gloucestershire with a special focus on Cotham Park), but barring those unusual circumstances, I can't see how a club at this level could be notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clubs at this level are not inherently notable, and there's nothing indicating they pass WP:GNG either. Smartyllama (talk) 17:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preveen pandita[edit]

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

Starting a discussion as the speedy deletion tag was removed by someone other than the creator of the page. I think the speedy deletion criteria given were valid; that this person does not meet notability guidelines and that the page is promotional in nature. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete currently written in a very promotional form, I can find not sources to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO KylieTastic (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The article already been deleted multiple times under diffrent title Preveen Pandita and Preveen Pandita (illusionist and Mentalist). GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources.- Mr X 14:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability in his field, also fails WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suldanessellar[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities. BOZ (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities given the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 30 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) f e minist 15:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lankhmar[edit]

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

This article does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BOZ (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens below, or merge to Nehwon. BOZ (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fictional literary city that existed in a set of notable books before adopted for in-game use. It has been adapted for other games, such as RuneQuest. Covered in Encyclopedia of Fantasy and Horror Fiction. Cited as an inspiration for Ankh Morpork in early Discworld [1], [2]. Also found "Bryce, S. C. "Power Plays: Explorations of Social Power in Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser Adventures." Fritz Leiber: Critical Essays (2008): 149-168." in Scholar, but I can't see the article itself. Parodying the Theater of Religion in the Fantasy of Fritz Leiber spends a couple of paragraphs describing the city, focusing on its fictional religions. So yeah, this isn't just another noplace D&D module, and you don't appear to have done any WP:BEFORE work, TTN. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please show where it is being mentioned in a non-trivial manner in most of those links. You say it is "covered in Encyclopedia of Fantasy and Horror Fiction", but it is literally not even mentioned once. Them listing book titles containing the name is not coverage of the fictional city. The final one is good, but not on its own. It would be better to have a section on analysis in the main article if there currently isn't one anyway. TTN (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fictional entity that appears to have some real-world significance; the fact that a notable board game and a notable D&D module have the name is instructive, and the sources Jclemens has identified count for a lot. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close. Google Scholar, which the nominator never checks, show more than 100 hits for Lankhmar, including book-length studies of the author's works. Since the nominator has bothered to make even the most superficial efforts to assess notability, and since "does not currently establish notability" is not sufficient grounds for deletion, this discussion should be closed out of hand. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. If any fictional entity is encyclopaedic, Lankhmar is. Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major plot element in notable series. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Allia[edit]

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

Wikipedia has been misused like anything by bloggers, promotional and advertisers like anything. sources are too week, nothing defines or establish any notability or standard for wikipedia. not every entrepreneur is wikipedia material. Light2021 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable early stage entrepreneur. Sources are PR driven or trivial mentions. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or a WP:WEBHOST form a company's investor prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith J. Allman[edit]

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

Now this one is ridiculously Employee Data/ Profile. They just forgot to attach their Resume. Definitely not worthy of Encyclopedic material. Light2021 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a bio of an unremarkable executive, cited to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per (WP:A7, WP:G4) by User:Callanecc. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaz Banga[edit]

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

It was already deleted earlier, with all Delete votes. Definitely written by some close ones. nothing significant so far to have place in wikipedia. its know for highest level of notability. its not promotional blog. Articles covered by San Francisco or Wall street are not in-depth. else are some PR host. Light2021 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the content has not substantially changed since the last time it was deleted, we should probably speedy delete per WP:G4. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt -- WP:PROMO on an unremarkable entrepreneur. The article is filled with puffery. Deleted at AfD in 2015 and recreated by Special:Contributions/TrinaMark, the same user who created the first version of the article. I thus recommend protecting the article from recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:42, 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. Sandstein 11:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why tho? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5247:2500:61D1:CA32:2E13:6C3D (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Pettibone[edit]

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

The main reason for the nomination is that the subject of this BLP does not seem to have any reliable sources profiling her or dealing with her in a thorough way. Almost all sources in the article talk about her in passing (in a sentence or two) and mostly in a negative fashion. This means that the article is now, and will remain in the future, primarily an WP:attack page.

This phenomenon has played out over the history of this article. There have been numerous sockpuppets (since blocked) who have tried to call her neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic and so on, based on dubious sourcing; and others sock (who are also blocked) who have tried to "balance" dubious sources with other dubious sources like Youtube videos and the like.

The bottom line is that reliable sources dealing with the subject are scarce, so no good BLP is possible. This article should either be stubbed, or deleted. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 10:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 10:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 10:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon reviewing the article I noticed that even the section about her life and work as an author is hardly verifiable - the most complete sources are a blog and a primary one. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is whether that information may be presumed accurate. Of course, neither source counts towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've reviewed the history of the article a bit and, as the nominator states, there have been efforts by both supporters and detractors to add information to the article but without sufficient reliable sources to verify article content. At this stage, the subject of this article does not appear to meet notability criteria. In the current political climate, that may change in the near future in which case the article can be recreated or restored (perhaps this is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon). Deli nk (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS - GretLomborg (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Washington Post article does not support Pettibone being notable. Starting an odd hastag, or in this case probably more reinvigorating it, is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pizzagate conspiracy theory I fail to understand how The New York Observer, or The Washington Post can be considered entirely unreliable/unnotable, but beyond that, I also don't understand why this being a possible "attack page" means we should delete it. The aforementioned sources don't appear to deal with the subject in a "passing" manner. Regardless, most of the notability of this article comes from the fact that Brittany Pettibone promoted Pizzagate, so if anything, we should merge to that article. --Aleccat 02:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Doesn't look to be quite enough to pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. That said, I don't buy the WP:ATTACK/WP:BLP rationales for deletion. There's a similar justification associated with another recent AfD for Jacob Barnett. Whereas he was a child, making claims inappropriately reported upon by the media, with exposure in large part through his parents, she is an adult with coverage about her words and activities made in public, as a public person. If there's significant coverage of her in reliable sources, then as long as we present it neutrally, without disproportionately emphasizing the negative, it's not a problem for BLP. But, again, I don't see quite enough that GNG is satisfied here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability based on the sources provided. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Newsweek gives her a heavy mention, Mother Jones states she was a speaker at an alt-right event — one needn't love the conspiracy theorist or their lunatic ideas to appreciate the fact that they are a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. It is pretty clear just from sources showing in the footnotes that this public figure merits a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence about this. I don't see any single source supporting this, by itself. Her indirect encouragement of the Comet Ping-Pong shooting might have elevated coverage of this above NOTNEWS, maybe. The Observer source about her canceled GoFundMe campaign, and the Denver Post and Hamilton Spectator articles all point to something, but it's a bunch of overlapping edge-cases.

The Newsweek mention describes her as one of countless online “investigators” and says little about her of substance. Being quoted by a source as a participant in a niche issue is very thin for conferring notability. We should guard against saying she inherited her notability from her involvement in spreading a notable conspiracy theory. The MJ source says Speakers include Brittany Pettibone, an alt-right writer who pushes the conspiracy theory of “white genocide.” That's it, and it does nothing for GNG, but it's suggest some staying power now that Pizzagate has died-down. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gav Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. - TheMagnificentist 08:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding evidence that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 18:28, 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 Speedy delete and salted as an attack page: had been speedy deleted already three times in the past week as well. Fram (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Kummanady[edit]

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

WP:NOTADICTIONARY _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up word, promo, unsourced and maybe created to disparage an Indian politician. - TheMagnificentist 08:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @TheMagnificentist: Thanks for pointing that out. I found some media coverage about the politician being trolled since an event a week or so ago. [3], [4], [5]. Probably enough for a speedy, which I'll raise now. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no word in malayalam like kummanady or kummanadi... what I understood is a political troll between two rivalry political parties india... the prime minister there is under z category protection and no one can easily travel with him as alleged.... this article is baseless and only a political propaganda and please remove... I hereby declare that I am not part of either of these political parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreekanthnair123 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These political rival words will not be used by common man in their daily life. its just a political satire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.206.54.58 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Moksha[edit]

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

Unremarkable film, appears to be a promo piece given this project is still in active fundraising on a well-known social platform. Cahk (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable secondary sources discussing this film. Cjhard (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NFF and being TOO SOON. Apparently this project may be filming, but it has not (yet) gained any coverage. If or when it does, undeletion might be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Death on the Nile#Agatha Christie's Poirot. The lone keep argument reconsidered noted they would possibly reconsider their !vote based on the fact the reviews found were for a different version of the film. If there is any content worth merging from this article into the target, it can be done so from the history. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 02:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death on the Nile (2004 film)[edit]

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

The notability of the article is in great question - It cites no sources for its information; It acts as if the story is not the same or close to the original novel's plot; And there is sufficient coverage about the adaptation, on the article covering the original novel. GUtt01 (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I agree that the referencing in the current version of the article is weak, this is a major made-for-TV movie shown in both the US and the UK, starring David Suchet. There are many professional reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes that can be used to create a "Critical reception" section, and those reviews show that the film is notable. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have seen the film twice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, that RT link is for the 1978 film directed by John Gullermin, which is different from the 2004 version directed by Andy Wilson. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the error and will reconsider my recommendation to keep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid I don't agree to this at all. For one, very strong reason, none of the other televised adaptation of Christie's Poirot novels, made by ITV, have gotten separate articles at all; they are instead covered by the "Adaptations" section of the articles covering her novels, which provide reasonable and sufficient coverage, particularly on who starred in it, and if the adaptation had any changes made to the original plot of the novel. As far as can be concerned, the article on the 2004 adaptation is set out as if it is an original story or doesn't not match closely to the plot at all; it even seems to paraphase some of the plot mentioned in the novel's article, from what I can see. The only adaptations of such novels that I can agree to having separate articles, are any films made, such as the 1978 adaptation. GUtt01 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all the links to reviews in the rotten tomatoes list lead to nothing. Searches for other RSs covering this telemovie have been fruitless. Doesn't pass GNG. Cjhard (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Death on the Nile#Agatha Christie's Poirot. Searching found a brief mention in one review: [6], while the article seems to have only IMDb as a source. This 2004 film doesn't have the coverage needed for WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death on the Nile, the book from which it was adapted, where the 1978 film adaptation is also covered. Note that the delete !votes above do not address WP:ATD-M, which prefers that non-notable (but verifiable, which all admit!) content be merged rather than deleted, and should be discounted as non-policy-based. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This 2004 film is already covered in Death on the Nile in the Agatha Christie's Poirot section. There may not be anything worthy of merging. Gab4gab (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gab4gab gets my point; merging this article is pointless, since there is absolutely nothing in the article that is notable for merging with the article on the novel. Either a deletion, or a redirection to the article Death on the Nile, would be suitable on the matter.GUtt01 (talk) 19:54, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Khan (politician)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and none is presumed from this relatively minor position. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage to give as evidence for notability, let alone substantial national coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can tell his position is serving on the town council of a town of 20,000, with no other claims to notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local authority councillors in the UK are not accorded an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL just for existing, but this article neither provides nor reliably sources any strong evidence that he could be considered more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Mazzolini[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only routine sources found. Fails the current iteration on WP:NHOCKEY by only playing in the low minors at his peak. Even if it was for several hundred games, he won no preeminent honors with second-team all-star as the highest individual award he earned and not enough for NHOCKEY#4 to presume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 08:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diamond (band)[edit]

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

A over the top mess of promotion, original research, failed verification and dud sources. Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is a bunch of self published (sites.google, facebook, myspace), shops, passing mentions and non mentions. None are independent reliable sources that contain any depth of coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 22 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) 01:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best I could find was a passing local mention [7]; not nearly enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND. gongshow talk 18:35, 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 Speedy Delete. G11 cum A7-ed by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkes Mkrdichian Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGOLF, in addition, no reliable sources (note that the link to the PGA website is a fake; the subject is not listed on the PGA website as a player). Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My questions is how do we keep this page from getting deleted. Sarkes Mkrdichian Jr is the first Armenia professional golfer who competes on many professional golf circuits and who will be competing the in the 2020 olympics. Thank you Jrgolf (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he makes it to the Olympics, he becomes automatically notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links added and more to add show his scores on the professional circuit, and also multipe other links to his profiles to show he is a real person are attached in the article about Sarkes Mkrdichian Jr as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgolf (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but being a real person is not sufficient for Wikipedia notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGOLF. Most of the links in the article either fail WP:RS or go nowhere....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:21, 22 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) 01:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The comment by article creator indicates forseeing the future, which is discouraged. The article at this stage shows no significance of this person. Nothing in this article indicates impact on golfing. Just more of an attempt to promote the person's career. BTW, I checked the guy's official website, and JRGolf is similar to the person's username. I suspect COI, which might violate either WP:COI or WP:BLPCOI. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I saw this, it was basically an ad: G11-quality. — fortunavelut luna 11:46, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Costello (actress)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Only reference is to IMDB, so no reliable sources. Killer Moff (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References to the Time Out Film Guide, a book about On The Buses, and some (of many) entries in the Radio Times have been added so it is no longer just IMDB. Added mention of two feature films she was in. Astronomyblog (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting her will make her the only actor from I Didn't Know You Cared without a Wikipedia article. She seems to be no less notable than some of the other less-well-known actors in that show. Astronomyblog (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added a British horror film she was in. She shared an award for The Full Monty from the Screen Actors Guild. Deleting her will also make her the only actor in [[8]] without a Wikipedia entry. Astronomyblog (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. IMO, The Full Monty should count in her favor, but the rest of her credits don't measure up to the NACTOR requirement of "significant roles in multiple notable ... productions". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I very rarely relist a discussion for a third time, but I'm not comfortable making a judgement call based on what we have right now and I think with a little more input we could avoid a no-consensus close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the breadth of well known British TV and radio she had been in together with an award for a named role in a film made her notable. But, if you deem her not notable enough, please also propose deletion for her equivalent counterparts in I Didn't Know You Cared, The Full Monty, On The Buses etc. Astronomyblog (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomyblog Your arguments here and above seem to be based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each article has to be based on it's own merits. I agree it's been improved from when it was first nominated, but it's still not enough, IMO, to pass WP:NACTOR--Killer Moff (talk) 10:17, 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. Closing without prejudice. References have been provided by those in this AFD demonstrating notability (and the delete sole delete !vote) is actually an argument to keep. Article does need improvement, however. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 02:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharry Mann[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Maybe an aspiring actor and musician but his bio as it stands does not fulfill a single criterion of either WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. Bio is also not backed by a single unaffiliated source. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Actor in two notable films passes WP:NACTOR, received independent coverage in The Times of India, Asian Music Chart listed him at no.1 and was featured on BBC radio also found this source about his performence at NBA. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To pass NACTOR, he would need major roles in multiple notable films. Having mosts downloads for two weeks does not make someone eligible for an encylopaedia article, either. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He played the main lead in those films. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recieved significant coverage here in Punjabi Tribune a sister project of The Tribune (Chandigarh). A Google search for ਸ਼ੈਰੀ ਮਾਨ and शैरी मान gets me a good number of hits, some of which seem pretty reliable. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Will take a look over the weekend. — kashmiri ^TALK 17:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sharry Mann is actually a popular Punjabi singer, e.g. one of his songs has received over 100 million views. But popularity & WP notability are two different things.

As already mentioned by GSS, he played lead role in two movies – Oye Hoye Pyar Ho Gaya [9][10] & Ishq Garaari [11] [12] [13]. The Punjabi Tribune's article provided by GSS sums up his life/career. This Hindi article of Dainik Jagran also gives details of his early life/career. There are other articles in national newspapers which give relevant details of his career, e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. I guess there are enough sources here to reliably source his article. In fact, as shown by GSS, it is also clear that he has received healthy coverage in Punjabi media, although I can't read Punjabi. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:22, 16 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) 01:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. As shown above, his acting roles have received coverage from national media as has his musical work. For additional coverage check here. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:10, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codemotion[edit]

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

Relatively minor tech conference--routine reports only DGG ( talk ) 14:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 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 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are an undue number of tech conferences compared to trade shows in other industries on Wikipedia, but 5000 attendees and coverage in Wired Magazine is probably enough to keep this one. The article does need copy-editing. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY with copy such as "Codemotion fully supports women engagement and is committed to holding a Conference that reflects the diversity of its community..." Industry conferences are rarely notable and the one attended by 5000 ppl falls in this group. This content can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site, where it belongs. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lean to keep since it has some coverage other than its own web site? Can see both sides on this one. W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"some coverage" is anextremely minimalstandard. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 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) 00:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written completely like promotional. Intentions are clearly to advertise the conference on Wikipedia. Non notable. Light2021 (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this time. However, if true and that they did create/started JavaDay, as stated in the piece, I could see revisiting. Sorry to say, I could not find any reliable sources to that affect. ShoesssS ^Talk
Delete--I failed to find any WP:RS covering the subject non-trivially.@Graeme Bartlett:-- Any particular reasons w.r.t to your's accepting the article?Winged Blades^Godric 10:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't know that we cover conferences - though I suppose TED (conference) and Burning Man might fit. I trust k.e.coffman when he says "Industry conferences are rarely notable." There's likely a lot of routine coverage ("There will be a conference ....") but hard to find anything substantive. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:22, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Grant[edit]

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

Charles E. Grant was a non-commissioned officer with Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II; he did not attain the rank or receive the awards to qualify him under WP:SOLDIER. He is probably best known for being shot by a drunken, fellow soldier and nearly miraculously saved. His post-war career was as a small businessman and did not garner the notoriety to qualify the article for retention under WP:GNG. The character Grant appeared in eight episodes of the miniseries Band of Brothers. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Band of Brothers per nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be mentioned in the Band of Brothers article, but otherwise not notable for stand alone article. WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 23 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) 00:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable soldier. Nothing stands out here, created solely due to the Band of Brothers connection. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This individual is not notable, and there's no logical place (IMO) to merge to. --Lockley (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan Bateman[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NACTOR. Most of the refs are self-promotional South Nashua (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article sources ard either not independent/reliable or not about Bateman. The best I found searching was this trivial mention in a student newspaper. Gab4gab (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable student performer. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Profits Comedy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHiPs Improv for the current afds on the groups he was affiliated with it--the same person seems to have written the 3 articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional resource added regarding False Profits founding verifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.211.27 (talk) 19:42, 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massutmaning[edit]

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

The article should be deleted because it's not notable enough. There is already a Wikipedia page for the author of the book, the existence of which already skirts the threshold for notability and has a tag for having been written by someone suspected of close affiliation with the author. There is no reason why a separate article should be created for one of the author's books. The text on the book is two short paragraphs, and the eight sources are all Swedish reviews of the book. No reviews in English have been cited, and it's unclear how this book is notable. I'd also like to note that the account that created the article was created a few days ago and has only edited the page of the author and created the page for his book. The user has been blocked for edit warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very notable in Sweden as well as Norway and has a Swedish page. The author is an recognized economist and researcher and is well known both in Sweden and in other Nordic countries. Your veiled insults and implications that I, as a new contributor, can't POSSIBLY be trusted to edit articles is laughable and shameful at the same time. GreenManXY (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that the author has a PhD in public policy, not economics. Note that it matters much: we don't create an article for every book by an academic that happens to have gotten a few reviews. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, you don't agree with the book and with the facts the author presents. This doesn't make you the arbiter of what is notable or not. A book that has been discussed on every major channel in Sweden as well as in most major newspapers is a notable book, regardless of your dislike of the facts. GreenManXY (talk) 18:18, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References 1, 3 and 8 appear to be about the book, from independent reliable sources (I am not including anything by the author in major Swedish media defending his book). What's more there's a good reference on the book from Sveriges Radio on the Swedish wiki article. This article in its current form presents criticism of the book, so it's hardly a puff piece. Seems to me we have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and specifically the first criterion of WP:BK. Keep. That said, a merge would be fine with me, too. Properly categorize the redirect page and really nothing of value would be lost. per WP:Preserve. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book is more notable than the author. I've purposefully created a separate article for the book to separate criticism of the facts presented in the book from the author himself. Especially since the original section was labeled "Controversy", as if to imply that the author himself is controversial. There is no controversy. Those who dislike the facts in the book and have criticism, should be summarized in the article regarding the book. GreenManXY (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per good sourcing from independent ref points. Per Book notability overall. BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is an extremely important and notable book that deserves its own wiki page. David A (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We don't require English sources – no encyclopedia writing about the entire world can rely on one language to get the information it needs. We merely prefer English sources over non-English sources when they're of equal quality and relevance. As for the book, it's certainly been one of the most notable books (the most notable book?) in the Swedish political debate so far this year, including plenty of criticism leveled towards it. Whether the article subject will mean it'll have any sort of persistence in the public mind is a different question, and difficult to answer right now, of course, but I certainly think it passes the first criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, and is an non-insignificant piece of the puzzle of explaining Swedish political debate in the late 2010s. Which isn't necessarily a good thing, but that's not really relevant here. /Julle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arguments about its significance are emotive WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Arguments for potential persistence are WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia's role is not pre-emptive, particularly where the impetus for creating an article smacks of borderline WP:PROMO for both the author and the book in question. The fact that we're arguing "other stuff" speaks to a shaky case verifiability, not notability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the arguments are emotive. I find it very difficult to see how this would be about verifiability, looking at the sources (even though Nyheter Idag is one of them, which Swedish Wikipedia usually avoids citing). But the sources speak pretty well for themselves, I think. Are you familiar with what being discussed for months in Expressen, Aftonbladet, Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet means in terms of notability in Swedish politics? Those are the four major newspapers with nation-wide distribution in the country. /Julle (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of discussions in these yellow press/tabloid publications (and op-ed pieces at that), and will remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, and that a handful of articles does not constitute more than headline disputes, nor does it demonstrate any form of persistence. By those standards, it does not meet WP:BKCRIT as you suggest. It's verifiable, not notable. I would agree with Shawn in Montreal's second suggestion that criticism and support may be accommodated in the article on the author. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, let's avoid slinging mud, especially inaccurately. Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet are the two leading 'serious' national broadsheet dailies of Sweden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 24 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) 00:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book clearly meets our notability guideline for books, since it has been reviewed and debated in many of the major media outlets in Sweden. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly to merge later. Notable book by a notable author and a sufficiently sourced article. (In general, I do not see the point of breaking out a single work from the total body of work of an author, when he or she has been otherwise active in discussing the same issues. But this goes for many other authors with Wikipedia articles and this one should not be treated differently.) --Hegvald (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DWService[edit]

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

Non-notable software company that fails WP:GNG. Originally written as a copyvio that likely had promotional intent, but that has been removed now. Sourcing doesn't indicate why we should keep it in the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG>Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:34, 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) 00:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are finding no evidence of notability, whether by WP:NSOFT, or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 18:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EcoStruxure[edit]

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

No independent evidence of notability. No references.

Google search turns up only the company's own advertising of the platform. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete better to shut down a draft with no potential sooner than later. Draft space is for incubating articles, which includes deleting topics found to have no potential. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 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) 00:03, 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. czar 01:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafay Rashdi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails to meet WP criteria WP:Artist. this was deleted through AfD earlier this year so perhaps this can be speedy deleted and salted. Saqib (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as before: [[21]]. Cjhard (talk) 02:41, 23 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) 00:03, 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. czar 00:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Johnson Porter[edit]

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

Made by prolific COI editor. Here the subject does not meet NMUSIC and whilst they have spammed references to make it seem like they meet GNG the references are all self-published/come from sites to pay for self-promotion/press releases. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable individual, aka spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:29, 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) 00:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time does not qualify. However, best of luck! Hope to see you included in the future. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:23, 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 speedy delete. Deleted by Widr as G3. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margarita Andreeva[edit]

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

A previous version created by the same editor stated Margarita Andreeva was the founder and chief of Lada (I suppose it meant AvtoVAZ, as it mentioned a 1966 date) and a famous singer. The current version is a few lines long and simply states Andreeva was a opera singer. But it still is false. For the sake of assuming good faith, I researched for reliable sources mentioning this alleged celebrity, but I found nothing, not even forum comments. The most relevant Margarita Andreeva I found is a ballerina. The article fails WP:V and WP:N and its only source is an article in a web hosting probably created solely for material support. In brief, it's a hoax. If deleted, I request the page being salted to stop recreations. Urbanoc (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax, same as yesterday. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT Creator has been repeatedly recreating, plus repeatedly removing AfD template. Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 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.