Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 June	26 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonity[edit]

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

non notable company, with press releases for references DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blurb by non-notable company. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I've read about them, they seem pretty notable in the restaurant industry in Canada (especially the Ontario region) and show up a lot on Google.

A few weeks ago, I even managed to read a case study published by Maitre'D about how Spoonity helped Bridgehead Coffee revamp their loyalty program. I wanted to add the reference, but Maitre'D was bought by Posera recently, it seems, and they removed the article (they still show up on their site, though). The only mention about it right now is one of Spoonity's blog posts that actually quotes it (here it is).

Here's a direct quote from it:

"Today, Bridgehead has 65,000 loyalty members across their operation. In 2014, they processed 1.5 million transactions through the Spoonity loyalty and gift programs. In the first year of the program, quick pay transactions increased 88%—and the bulk of that increase was from people paying with their smartphones."

To me, that makes it seem like a pretty relevant startup, especially when it comes to today's growing trend of mobile payments.
There's also this:

"To date, Spoonity has raised about $500,000 through self-financing and government grants, including the federal Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax credit and the Industrial Research Assistance Program."

That really made them stand out for me, as I found it to be an interesting and notable way to go about funding a business. Wanted to add that as well, but thought it would make it seem like the company is promoting itself.
Oh, and if the entry seems too much like a blurb because I mentioned too many services, they could just be edited out (I mainly did that since it's the style I've seen in most Wiki company entries).
Also, sorry for any formatting or linking mistakes - still getting used to the reply style on Wiki.
--TimMocan (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)TimMocan— TimMocan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Would you like to tell us if you have any COI in this matter? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean Conflict of Interest? No, though I can understand why it might seem that way because of the data in the info box. But I pulled most of that from their LinkedIN profile.

tbh I'm more of a startup geek and love to read about these kinds of companies (trying to learn as much as I can so that I can write about this subject in my native tongue). Started looking up mobile loyalty program startups when the local bars/restaurants in my hometown started implementing cumbersome punch-card-based loyalty programs recently. And that's how I came across Spoonity.

I was quite impressed with what they managed to achieve since the startup was founded, and I was surprised there wasn't a Wiki entry about them (managed to find one for most of their clients or partners, though). Figured that a company that actively works to both change the state of today's market to be more consumer-friendly, and also help other businesses adapt to this change (according to most online articles I've read and referenced) is pretty noteworthy.

So, I thought I could give writing a Wiki entry about them a shot, especially since I'm looking to exercise developing a more objective style of writing.
--TimMocan (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)TimMocan[reply]

After some deliberation, I decided I should include the $500,000 raised in funding part too, as it should showcase their notability even more - both that they used creative methods to do it, and that they were featured in The Globe and Mail too (since it's one of Canada's most read newspapers).
--TimMocan (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit - managed to find more references after some digging around, and added them in the Wiki entry. Apparently the CEO was ranked among the first in Invest Ottawa's Top 100 Rising Star CEOs. I used this link for the reference, though, as it seems more credible.

Also, it seems the company was featured on CTV Ottawa News.

Hope these links and edits better showcase why I consider the company to be noteworthy.
--TimMocan (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable startup Light2021 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references in the article speak for themselves (almost all press releases) so I'll speak to the links that TimMocan added above. The mention on the Posera website doesn't constitute at reliable source, as they're not a magazine or journal (etc) and they're not independent -- they are a "partner" of the article subject. The Globe and Mail article is slightly better, but it still doesn't constitute the depth of coverage expected by WP:CORP -- it's not a profile of the company or even a suggestion that the company is notable for any particular reason. Even if the G&M article was a great source, it's the only one we've got, which means we haven't passed the bar of WP:CORP. A Train^talk 12:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG and I deleted all the unnecessary micro-detail unnecessary crap that was stuffed in to inflate the article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Adams[edit]

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

Promotional material about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Nothing has been written about her career on reliable sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yuk. We have to stop treating the lifestyle section of otherwise usable sources as a WP:RS. No substance whatsoever. Mduvekot (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Note that article was created by the subject of the article via a move from her user page. Netherzone (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete. The problem with assessing articles on people who have been successful in the media like this is that it is often difficult to separate coverage by the person from coverage about the person. In this case, there is a long list of sources in the article, but as far as I can tell they're either from entities that are not independent (such as her publisher), or they are not primarily about Adams; they're on her book, or her other work. This isn't to suggest that she's not a talented individual, but I don't see that she meets the WP:GNG yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above comments. A super hot lady that is talented-- and with at least one good looking co-author (I could be a fan)-- might be encyclopedic to those that like food, or to a select other few, but at this time sources don't appear to be there to satisfy the Wikipedia inclusion criteria, for an encyclopedia. If there is doubt about separating reliable sources "by her" or "about her" then, since this is a BLP, we default to not enough coverage at this time for notability. Also --"best seller" appears to be book selling advertisement. Her other writings besides the "best selling book"^{[dubious – discuss]} so far-- has been associated with "table top magazine" writings. Ref-bombing 26 general references, without a single inline citation would likely, in the real Wikipedia world where BLP's are held to a higher standard for sources and citations, should have probably resulted in some speedy delete anyway. Given time I am sure there will be more interest, more books (just one book seems to not satisfy other criteria like WP:BIO1E-- as noted by the last paragraph there) and co-authors, more notability, and sources other than Penguin Random House or Amazon (like New York best seller list), to verify actual "best seller", and I am sure she will return. Otr500 (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically an advertisement, and with borderline notability at best DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 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. G11: overly promotional. Primefac (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyan Besco[edit]

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

Subject not notable. No reliable sources able to be found. I tried speedying it, but the user kept removing the CSD template. –XboxGamer22408^talk 21:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is no reason this should be at AfD right now and the prior tag was sufficient. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad, did you re-tag the article? It didn't have a tag there when I submitted this. –XboxGamer22408^talk 21:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. I've also given the user a L2 warning about deleting CSD tags. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 21:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GammaRadiator, the user was actually already past level 4. I think Chrissymad reported them to AIV. I tried explaining to the user that simply existing isn't notable enough, but they wouldn't listen to it. –XboxGamer22408^talk 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XboxGamer22408 Sorry about that - I didn't see the prior warnings when I did mine. I'll rescind my L2 in a sec. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 21:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged when you submitted the AfD. See here. They've also maxed out their warns.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 12:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Malhotra[edit]

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

I cannot find evidence that this 'well-respected entertainment individual' meets GNG, additionally, even his IMDB page (not a reliable source, I know) says he was merely a member of the crew on a number of listed films. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's a film distributor and also the General Manager of Yash Raj Films but mere association with a well known organisation doesn't make him notable. Fails WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Skr Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:45, 3 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 and redirect to Eric Dregni. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Bowling![edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this book. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-promotion. With an ranking on Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,198,309 not quite there yet as notable. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to author Eric Dregni. His notability is a little uncertain (some of the links on his article are dead) but some of his other books have been reviewed. I can't find anything about this book, and there are no references to articles on it. It might be worth checking Canadian newspaper databases, but I wouldn't expect to find enough for a keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nominator Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Colapeninsula which is the correct way to handle creative works that do not warrant their own article. Regards So Why 12:24, 3 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 National Kidney Foundation. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 09:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Council on Renal Nutrition[edit]

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

Should merge with National Kidney Foundation. It's not an independent organisation. Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect – Agree, better served at National Kidney Foundation. But delete no. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Kidney Foundation; there's nothing to merge as the article does not include any 3rd party citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 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. Sandstein 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon West[edit]

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

Won an award as part of a team; doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the subject is not notable. --Lockley (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nom Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:46, 3 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. And protect. Sandstein 06:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTALBALL. And WP:SALT. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as in Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Already deleted four times. Definitely needs some sodium chloride applied to the earth. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time, 2017 versus 2032. God knows I want to be here for it. But WP:CRYSTALBALL is definitely appropriate. Kudos to the editor that started the page (Nice Job). We can certainly use your editing skills. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally the only thing we know about the 2032 Games is they're going to air on NBC in the United States, or whatever form of television NBC is in 2032. We've got a foggy ball otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 00:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw somewhere recently that this would be up for re-creation now that the site for the 2028 olympic games had been settled, presumably so the bidding could be covered here. Sounds like an odd reason to me, and I can't remember where I saw this. Can anyone else comment on our precedent for handling future olympic games? Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research with no references. With referenced content, I would support the creation of Bids for the 2032 Summer Olympics. The 2028 Olympics have been awarded, so this is the next cycle to be awarded. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above arguments suggest this fails WP:CRYSTALBALL and at the moment there does not seem to be any serious discussion about bids making an article at this stage rather pointless and speculative. Dunarc (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per WP:TOOSOON and the article being created and deleted 4 times already prior to this one....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article appears to be pure speculation that countries bidding for the 2028 Summer Olympics before they decided to award that the same time as 2024 are now considering bidding for 2032 instead, of which there is no reliable source saying so. If there were any reliable sources discussing bids for 2032, I would support keeping this. But that's not the case. Smartyllama (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until 2020 per above. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2028 article has existed since 2006. There will likely be reliably sourced information on 2032 prior to 2020. There isn't yet, so it should be deleted per my !vote above, but oppose salt. Smartyllama (talk) 22:58, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Gear Media[edit]

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

Only exist to promote it, not significant to be part of encyclopedia. Wikipedia used as Blog or promotional spot. Light2021 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable media company. Coverage does not met WP:CORPDEPTH, including funding news and other routine corporate aspects. Wikipedia is not a web host for this company's investor prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it might just be WP:TOOSOON, but I'm not impressed with the depth of the coverage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:42, 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 and redirect to List of Produce 101 Season 2 contestants. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Taemin[edit]

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

Individual fails WP:GNG and article is badly sourced with refs from WP:KO/RS#UR. Abdotorg (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in every notability criteria, participating in one survival show is not enough for an article. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the South Korea-related deletion discussions. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - game show participants don't tend to get sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources until they've done a lot more than just appear. ( This should be called the Warhol Rule or something catchy like that...everyone is famous for 15 minutes?) --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Produce 101 Season 2 contestants per WP:ATD-R. Really people, why do we need to delete everything that can easily be handled differently? Regards So Why 12:20, 3 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 as no claim of significance (A7) (deleted by Jimfleak.) (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kumar (Writer)[edit]

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

New author with no evidence of any notability . Some of the refs are the inevitable book sales sites and others reference peripheral issues and not the article subject. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by WP:SPA account User:Atul Kumar (Writer), about a recent graduate who has self-published. The provided references are not reliable (either by the subject or not mentioning him) and I am not finding better. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There have been previous submissions of variant-names (Author Atul Kumar, Atul Kumar Author, Atul Kumar (Author) by Atul654, which account is now blocked as a result. In that context, this repost using a new account is block evasion so a CSD G5 seems appropriate. AllyD (talk) 18:42, 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 delete. So Why 12:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Neddeaus of Duqesne Island[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've replaced the in-universe content with a stub, but am concerned the shorter version is still describing a hoax. No references and the CBC live stream link claims to be restricted to Canada. It may just be a 10-minute long Facebook promo for a non-existent show. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, for what it's worth, this actually is a real thing — Bearcat the Canuck can slide right past the geoblock, and is currently listening to Colin Mochrie talking about potatoes — but Powerenwiki was right to restub it nonetheless: what it is, is a new mockumentary web series that's pretending to be a "lost documentary film" from the 1970s. (And if you don't believe me, consider that it's got Colin Mochrie, who didn't start acting until 1980, and Cara Gee, who wasn't even born until 1983, in it.) But I can find exactly zero reliable source coverage about it besides glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of the CBC's forthcoming digital OTT service CBCX, and web series are not granted an automatic presumption of notability per WP:TVSHOW just for existing. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if the reliable sourcing beefs up and/or it gets a Canadian Screen Award nomination next January for "Original Digital Program or Series, Fiction" — but nothing here as of right now is enough, and even if it does amass a stronger notability claim in the future the article will still have to be written honestly. Next step: running the WP:HOAX detector across Ford Francis Mayflower, the purported director of the 1970s documentary film that this never really was. Stay tuned. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, the avatar of Canadiana. WP:TOOSOON? Bearian (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per MrX Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:53, 3 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 Dazhou. In case someone wants to reuse the content Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dazhou Xiwai Stadium[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable sports stadium. Quis separabit? 17:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Quis separabit? 17:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 06:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dazhou. Not notable on its own but a mention in the city's article makes sense per WP:ATD-M. Regards So Why 12:15, 3 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 Monsta X. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 09:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chae Hyungwon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, not individually notable outside of his group. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Article should be redirected back to the group's main article until the individual has enough notablity for a sole article. Abdotorg (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Abdotorg, this guy has had nearly three thousand pageviews in the last week - that is, the entire time the article has existed. There is clearly some demand to know who he is, and he doesn't wholly lack notability - just enough to not warrant his own article, even as implied by nominator's rationale. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid WP:DEL-REASON given. I will consider changing my position if someone comes up with something. We cater to all "groups" here on WP so notability within a "group" is sufficient so long as the WP:GOLDENRULE and other requirements are met and I believe they are here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is not valid? Look at WP:BAND, it clearly says "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable."; this person has not done ANYTHING outside of his band, and is therefore not notable. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of our more specific notability guides respect WP:GNG and that's exactly what's happening in WP:BAND point #1. This is a restatement of WP:GNG. Based on significant coverage, these requirements are met and so WP:BAND is met. You seem to be saying that a notable person who is notable only for being a member of a band should not have a stand-alone article. Clearly Chae Hyungwon is no James Hetfield, Bono or Robert Smith (musician) but if there is adequate coverage, band members are independently notable even if they don't have solo careers or other notable activities. ~Kvng (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has no adequate coverage though, if you google his name, majority of articles are band-related, or there is pure trivial coverage like "MONSTA X's Hyungwon Revealed To Have Suffered Injury", "Monsta X Reveal Fun Facts About Themselves In The March Issue" etc., and 90% of the sources are from allkpop.com and soompi.com, which are fancruft sites and unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now were getting somewhere. I'll have a closer look later. ~Kvng (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Abdotorg - as others have stated, trivial coverage in relation to the group and no notability outside of it.Evaders99 (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boxed (record label)[edit]

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

Non-notable record label. - TheMagnificentist 15:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no confirmed signed artists, issues seem to be mixes. Only sources found were a listing in an advertisement, and discogs. Does not appear to be notable by NMUSIC#5 nor GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not inherited from notable artists; nothing else there otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarred Cannon[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, failed political candidate. Creator feels ot meets WP:GNG, but sources are not any more than for any unsuccessful candidate. Seems to be self-promotional. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet basic notability guidelines, let alone those specific to a politician. Created by COI account who also contributed this non-controversy to the bio of an elected official: [1]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe as a "pre-candidate" he's "pre-notable"--that is, notable outside of mainspace. Delete. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates in party primaries do not get an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL: if a person was not already notable enough for an article for some other reason before being a candidate in an election, then they have to win the election (and I mean the general, not just the primary) to get an article because election per se. Our job is to keep articles about officeholders, not everybody who ever ran and lost. And as for his getting over WP:GNG, all I see here is entirely WP:ROUTINE coverage not even slightly different from what every candidate in any election always gets: apart from his answers to a strictly pro forma "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire that the local newspaper gave to every candidate, this is otherwise based entirely on raw tables of vote totals and candidate lists. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to demonstrate his candidacy as somehow special compared to every other non-winning candidate in his or any other election. And for added bonus there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by "TheCannon410" — COI isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, certainly, but it does confirm that the core intent here was self-promotion rather than encyclopedia-building. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Sasol. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bongani Nqwababa[edit]

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

While the company that he is a joint President and CEO of is notable, he isn't per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 14:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sasol per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 12:08, 3 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 and redirect to Sasol. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Cornell[edit]

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

While the company that he is a joint President and CEO of is notable, he isn't per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 14:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not separately notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sasol per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 12:07, 3 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. So Why 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tits & Clits[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. This article has changed little from when it was created in 2010, and the entire time has never had an independent reliable source, just links to this group's social media. Searching for the name of this group doesn't bring up anything associated with it from what I saw.331dot (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS, and I couldn't find any RS while Googling. --Hirsutism (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:37, 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 Sentinel Island. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 09:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sentinel Islands[edit]

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

Unnecessary mid-level geographical division. Topic is adequately covered by North Sentinel and South Sentinel. The "parent" articles for these should be Andaman Islands (physical geography) and South Andaman district (administrative). "Sentinel islands" is not an administrative division. There is no information useful on this page - all of the information in the infobox is duplicated in the child articles. LukeSurl^{t c} 10:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & Delete – Redirect to North Sentinel Island, which is the most famous of the two and is blue linked to South Sentinel Island. Reason for the Redirect versus outright deletion is that I believe an individual may search under Sentinel Islands versus North or South. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a redirect to the disambig at Sentinel Island. --LukeSurl^{t c} 09:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sentinel Island. Agree that's a better place than North Sentinel as either island is plausible. Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parikrama Group of Institutions[edit]

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

No significant indication of importance. Unsourced, written like an advertisement, especially the sections about their mission and vision, seems to be copied directly from the institution's website. Hayman30 (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fails WP:ORG. There have been a whole passel of these Indian, for-profit, marginally situated, educational "groups", none of which seem to be the least bit notable. --Bejnar (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shallow coverage in RSs. Rentier (talk) 11:58, 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 delete. So Why 12:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bevan (effects artist)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Award was won by the whole team. Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically no coverage, certainly no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPNOTE. He is an employee at Marvel Studioa. The award was a team award, not an individual one. It was not a juried award, and Doctor Strange was one of five 2016 movies so recognized in 2017. He was not the team leader, Georg Kaltenbrunner was. Notability is not inherited. --Bejnar (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Bejnar Sulaimandaud (talk) 07:07, 3 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. Sandstein 06:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saisingsugu[edit]

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

unref blp - prod rem with no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A BLP Prod can't just be removed by a drive-by IP edit: it can only be removed along with or after adding a reference, which hasn't been done here. Anyway, perhaps the 7 days is better spent decisively here at AFD. AllyD (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches, including the tailored Wikiproject India search, are returning nothing to indicate notabiility for the subject. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus is keep, keep voters also present better arguments. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daddyofive[edit]

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

The article seems promotional using phrases such as "has seen great success", and their only notability is due to the outrage over their videos and ensuing losing custody of their children. I am not exactly seeing the notability here. Andise1 (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – The first issue can easily be rectified without deleting the entire page. The second might warrant the page being renamed to focus on the controversy (and rewritten accordingly), since you yourself have acknowledged that the controversy itself is notable (there are several newspaper articles cited in the article itself). V2Blast (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another YouTuber who got their fame through stupid means. Channel doesn't exist now, their fame is gone and though the controversy is definitely notable the subject is not on their own. Also have concerns due to the child subject involved in said 'pranks'. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The subject is now equated with the controversy, the name "DaddyOFive" even clearly in the title of the references. So I see no need to rename except perhaps to fix to uppercase OF. Any other concerns can be addressed by editing. -- œ^™ 23:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The latest source (CraveOnline) is from May 25, talking about how parents continue to exploit their kids despite the D05 controversy http://www.craveonline.com/design/1267451-daddyofive-controversy-hasnt-stopped-youtube-parents-using-kids-cash - This shows continued commentary on the issue WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And it is somehow a good idea to repeat internet accusations and innuendo in our encyclopedia? For the record, we already had Draft:Daddyofive and DaddyOFive (two iterations). Pinging previously involved admins DGG, C.Fred, CambridgeBayWeather. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's rare that internet accusations lead to analyses of the situation in major newspapers in the US and UK (if you like I can assemble sources). A custody loss occurred so there were consequences to the controversy. Having said that you have to be very careful not to cross lines covering this subject. There are many possible complications. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not me. I am all for deleting this thing. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as much as I can't stand the bloke and what he's done, he is notable for his acts and there are many, many references scattered through the internet, and as such, he quite clearly meets GNGs. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 10:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient press coverage of this professional YouTuber to fulfill GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 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 no consensus. So Why 12:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Elkins[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. I don't see any WP:Reliable sources that establishes this persons notability. Mitchumch (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a close associate of Martin Luther King, Jr mentioned specifically in MLK's autobiography. He was also an important leader in a large historically black college. Given the civil rights struggle predates the internet, sources are harder to find but undoubtedly exist in other books. I fully expect his controversial activities would have been reported in 1960's newspapers. His later work is also somewhat notable, with many of his works findable in a search. That is why I promoted the page. Dr Elkins is far more notable than the pageant queens and youtubers that get pages here. He actually changed history. Legacypac (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being a close associate of MLK does not make one notable. There does not appear to be any content about his important leadership at a HBCU. Numerous Wikipedia articles rely upon sources that cannot be examined on the internet. If you are aware of sources, then please cite them so they can be examined. As the article stands now, it should be restored to the draft page space until you have added those sources. Considering it had been in draft space from 25 May 2015‎ until 9 June 2017, the article should have been deleted over a year ago. Mitchumch (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references in the article devote significant coverage to Elkins, and my search online found no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I found passing mentions of Elkins as an aide or assistant to MLK but this is not enough to establish notability. I own two lengthy biographies of MLK, Let the Trumpet Sound and Parting the Waters and neither mentions Elkins. I also own a 702 page volume of his essential writings called A Testament of Hope and King doesn't mention Elkins once. The ability to find someone's published work online does not make a person notable. If it did, then every single blogger, published writer and reporter would be notable, but 99% aren't. We cannot keep an article based on speculation that better sources exist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST applies here. I'm not a subject matter expert, I found this while reviewing AfC submissions. I spent some time improving the sourcing and verifying what I could on the internet. Everything checked out as far as I could find, so I doubt the contributor made up anything in the article. We are dealing with a - perhaps minor nut notable - civil rights leader and looking for sources from the 1960's.

Further to Mitchumch comment about a HBCU: North Carolina Central University is a HBCU. ref 7 "Microsoft Word - Christian.Ministry.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-06-10. says "In 1962, several judicatories decided to establish the United Christian Campus Ministries at universities and colleges throughout the State of North Carolina. They include the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, United Methodist Church, Episcopal Diocese of Raleigh, Presbyterian Church – USA, Diocese of Raleigh – Roman Catholic, United Church of Christ, and The Lutheran Council. From 1965-1966, Reverend Hank Elkins became director of the United Christian Campus Ministry. Judicatories, local businesses, and churches, across denominational lines, lent support through finances, buses, vans, and representatives to serve on the Campus Ministry Board. The University provided work study funds. However, during Reverend Elkins’ tenure, the State of North Carolina, through the Governor’s Office, began to question the use of state funding for a religious organization. Later, the Institution had to pay back the work-study funding." Also it refers to his immediate predecesor as "the first campus minister" at little further down it talks about tensions over civil rights protests and the role of Campus Ministry leadesrship in that, tensions which appear to have started under Elkin.

I've added refs to Jet Magazine, a mention in a Los Angeles paper from 1962, and another book referencing his role in the Carver Park incident.

Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't locate much, other than incidental mentions and a group photo in the Aug. 23, 1962 issue of Jet magazine. Newspapers.com drew a blank. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple brief mentions located on Newspapers.com, that he was an "Atlanta aide to King" and a "College Chaplin" at NC College, the latter mentioned in The Daily Tar Heel in 1963. Still no substantial sources counting towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another brief mention in The Daily Dar Heel that Rev. Elkins was arrested at a sit-in protesting segregated lunch counters in Dec. 1963. One does suspect that the sources are oout there somewhere, but I'm not finding them myself. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST has been mentioned as a reason to keep the article. That section concludes "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." I searched three major printed sources as well as online and found nothing significant. I will gladly switch to "Keep" if significant coverage is brought forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Main issue is lack of in-depth sources. I think the footnote in The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., Volume VII is sufficiently in-depth. I've added another mention from the Greensboro Record using genealogy bank (which does not have clippings), but which is an in-passing announcement of a talk he was giving about sit-ins and mentions his position. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this article because he is not notable. I am not disputing his participation in the movement. I am disputing his notability. Not every person that participated in the civil rights movement is notable. Elkins is among that group of non-notable participants. Not a single citation supports this person being notable. I actively work on Civil Rights Movement related articles and routinely scan draft pages for potential articles. I have never come across a journal article, monograph, thesis, dissertation, or a published conference paper about this person. Mitchumch (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched a different way (look for Hank Elkins) and found 3 pages in a 2016 book "From Reconciliation to Revolution: The Student Interracial Ministry, Liberal Christianity, and the Civil Rights Movement" focused on Elkins, his part in a student movement toward desigrigation that lead to his posting working for King and his involvement in the Albany Movement. He lived with the Kings, assisting, driving for and supporting King in a time where a white person would be denied housing for associating with blacks. This is in depth coverage in a serious book. see pages 39-41 in particular ^[1] I don't own the book, he could be covered further, but that is a serious discussion of Elkins in an important context with 5 inline sources specific to him, and at least the first chapter devoted to the group of student activists he was part of. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point of that book is to discuss the Student Interracial Ministry which will need to be created. Every member of that org that participated in the CRM can be included in that article.

Here's an example to clarify this problem. I have listed nearly every participant of the Freedom Rides in the Notes section. Are you saying that each participant should have an article? There were hundreds of volunteers during Freedom Summer and hundreds of elementary students during the Birmingham campaign. As individuals the majority of participants are not notable enough, but as a group they are notable. The Elkins article should be a redirect to Student Interracial Ministry. That way other members in the book can also be presented and Elkins can have a presence on Wikipedia thru that article. Mitchumch (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While until the page can be merged to Student Interracial Ministry this page should be kept per WP:PRESERVE. No point destroying the work just because there is a better way to present it. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While researching is difficult, and finding sources online for this time period is difficult, with the extra sourcing which has been added, I think this person overcomes the "inherited notability" for his relationship to King, and now meets WP:GNG on his own. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ""inherited notability" for his relationship to King" is a violation of WP:INVALIDBIO which states, "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the pages Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are merely redirects to those articles." Mitchumch (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=dIgwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=North+Carolina+College+Hank+Elkins&source=bl&ots=0KkkidrHLZ&sig=z3GNsDBhGnsidEEeYQH74XmOUbA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimvoC-m7nUAhVY-2MKHXMdB30Q6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=North%20Carolina%20College%20Hank%20Elkins&f=false

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article was expanded after the nomination for deletion, and additional sources were added to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has substantial coverage and is well-referened. Vorbee (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only claim to notability is his connection to MLK. Since notability is not inherited, I would delete as non-notable. Coverage is a threshold question for notability, but alone does grant it. Clearly he is verifiable. Whether or not there is significant coverage here has not been specifically addressed, just asserted. See "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article WP:Notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite my inclination to keep a referenced, cogent article on such a man, subject does not reach notability. --Lockley (talk) 05:58, 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 and redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#Season 1 (2013–15). Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Woman[edit]

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

Few reliable sources available, and the article is sourced mainly with sources with only passing mentions, and blogs on Tumblr. Fails the GNG. — Quasar G. 12:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 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 09:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable episode of an animated television series. It fails WP:GNG. Having lots of citations in an article can make it look as if it has significant coverage, but when the large majority are not independent sources, or are otherwise unreliable sources, the practice fails, as it does here. The guideline for television programme episodes indicates that Over time, you might find that some episodes or story-arcs have enough real-world information to warrant their own article. This one does not. --Bejnar (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per nomination. Too much cruft. --Lockley (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#Season 1 (2013–15) per WP:ATD-R. Lack of reliable sources or stand-alone notability does not mean WP:ATD no longer applies as a policy. Regards So Why 06:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above without prejudice to recreation when sources similar to those I identified in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sworn to the Sword are found and added. Sandstein 08:56, 3 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. So Why 07:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open strategy[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Comatmebro (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 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 09:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Return to draft. while it might be possible to write an encyclopedic article about "open strategy", this article is not that one. An article might start with an historical approach, when was the concept developed, by whom, for what reasons; then go to an analysis of the concept's components, who is considered an "outsider" and who are stake-holders, what are the pros and cons of adopting an open strategy; then deal with aspects of actual use, what industries or environs typically use open strategies, etc. Simply throwing a bunch of citations together with a definition is not a good start. Learn the subject, outline an article, then write the article using appropriate reliable sources that actually discuss the concept, not just implement it, to support individual points. --Bejnar (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encycopedia article. No point returning it to draft--it would need to be started again. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 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. czar 00:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trongs[edit]

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

Non-notable product. The first AfD, seven years ago, was to keep, but hopefully our standards have improved since then. I can't see the two Chicago Trib articles cited (they're behind a paywall), but the description in the first AfD of those articles makes it sound like they wouldn't support WP:N, and I can't find any other WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding mentions such as this one from 2014 in Metro UK and a similar one on a Daily Mirror website. The Mirror has been determined to be a non-reliable source. I question whether the Metro UK post is any better as a source because its article reads like a press release/"puff piece."For that matter, the Metro UK post reads about the same. Elsewhere I find a number of blog posts and a passing mention in a Huffington Post article about a competing product from South Korea. There are insufficient mentions in relable sources so this article fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 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. So Why 07:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liban Soleman[edit]

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

While this person may be off to a good start in life, there is not enough evidence of notability. Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources available indicate article passes WP:BASIC.--TM 02:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources present in the article are not evincing a GNG or BASIC pass — there's a blurb, a podcast, an article in which he's quoted giving soundbite about something else, and a contextless gallery of photographs — and if there are better sources out there about him which would bolster the case, they ain't exactly showing up in great swarms on my Google. There's certainly a valid potential notability claim here, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this — but there's no notability claim strong enough that mere verification of its truth would be enough in and of itself to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 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. So Why 07:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of North Carolina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A search yielded only trivial mentions that do not prove the subject's importance or notablility. --Hazarasp (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added information from a variety of secondary sources. The party when it was affiliated with the Socialist Party of America was relatively strong and is mentioned repeatedly in historical accounts of the era. It needs a lot of cleanup but that is not a reason to delete.--TM 14:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect title to Socialist Party USA. While it is true that there was a Socialist Party in North Carolina back in the day, the article does not claim that it ever won an election, or did anything else of any significance. As per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, the article is presently being used to WP:PROMOTE a Socialist Party of the same name recently established, but that also has won no elections and seems to have made no waves.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple, reliable sources covering the subject at hand. Whether it won an election or not is not the issue. Most alternative parties have little electoral influence but the question is about sources, not success.--TM 16:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked before I commented, and the sources fail to claim or to show that the Party had an impact of any kind. It existed, and its adherents engaged in the usual arguments with other socialists, covered briefly or merely mentioned in a handful of political histories and a history of the American Communism. There is an article on the National Party, but only 4 state parties are linked. One of the things that counts towards keeping a political Party is that it has won elections. Here, we are looking for some evidence that this party had an impact in North Carolina, apart, that is, from the impact that the Socialist party, in general, had on the politics of the United States, in general. Something like getting enough votes to throw a statewide election a la Ralph Nader.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your personal standard, but that is not the standard for Wikipedia. The existence of political party that advocated against Jim Crow in the US South and won thousands of votes while doing so is actually quite extraordinary. Its activities received mainstream and statewide press coverage during its day and continue to be written about by academics and other authors. That explains why it passes WP:ORG.--TM 18:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at WP:ORG and at this recent debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Justice Party (UK) during which an article on a political party was persuasively sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that's an OTHERSTUFF argument — there is no requirement that a political organization win an election, that is wholly irrelevant. What matters is that GNG be fulfilled by the existence of multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability from which a decent article can eventually be constructed. This subject clearly meets that threshold. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Socialist Party of North Carolina is still active through the Northern Piedmont local, we have been growing quickly and meet on a monthly basis. The events we have attended and co-organized have definitely had an impact on North Carolina. We will be running campaigns for local office in the near future, especially if SB656 passes and we are able to get ballot access. I cannot find anything on the Wikipedia 'about' section that states political parties should have to be big enough to win or throw elections to have a blurb on Wikipedia, especially if they are currently active parties. It is worth mentioning that North Carolina fears third parties throwing elections enough that they make laws specifically to keep us off the ballot, indeed, these laws were made specifically because a socialist candidate gained ballot access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.19.137.26 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this report which examines North Carolina ballot access laws and indicates that, in response to the SPNC's ability to get on the ballot in 1932, the 1935 NC legislature drastically increased ballot access requirements, which last until today. Seems like a long lasting impact to me.--TM 11:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the United States state-level political parties are autonomous of the national entities and have their own elected officials and structures. Nobody would argue that this is the least problem for the Republican Party (North Carolina Republican Party) or the Democratic Party (North Carolina Democratic Party); nor should it be a problem for the Socialist Party, which had a full structure down to the county level in certain years of its existence. Before I demonstrate that this particular state organization meets GNG (which it does), I do want to comment upon part of the confusion. In 1972-73, the Socialist Party of America blew up into three factions. One of these became the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, now Democratic Socialists of America — today the largest socialist organization in the US, I think, claiming 20,000 members. Another of these became Social Democrats, USA, which atrophied and has, with several confusing factional death throes, now gone extinct. The third of these, actually the smallest faction in 1973, emerged as Socialist Party USA, which continues to this day. All three of these organizations claim to be heirs of the Socialist Party of Debs and Thomas, although the claims are not ironclad for any. In an ideal world the old, guaranteed to meet GNG or your money back, Socialist Party of North Carolina (SPA) would be a separate article from the Socialist Party of North Carolina (SPUSA), which is a very small outfit and which may or may not meet GNG on its own. "Piggybacking" these articles is not unusual, see my Socialist Party of Oregon and Socialist Party of Washington pieces for other examples of this genre. They do need to be split at some point, I observe. Anyway, some sourcing evidence to follow. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject of multiple pieces of substantial coverage in independently published publications of presumed reliability. Taking a random wander through the forest to demonstrate this... Here is A PIECE in the Asheville Citizen-Times, March 8, 1901, on the Asheville, NC Municipal Socialist Club pursuing the elections with a slate of candidates. This information would be included in a big kids' history of the SPNC... Carrite (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER PIECE from the same source, March 11, 1901, on forthcoming mass meeting featuring a speaker from Tennessee. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this fucking rocks, a local SPA newspaper, The Workman, published in Asheville, issue of March 30, 1901. Link might be paywalled to Newspapers.com subscribers. Most of these type papers were privately owned and not party owned, for what it's worth. Includes the Socialist Party of Asheville's platform on page 1. This would become Local Asheville SPA in the summer of 1901... Carrite (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the full slate of candidates of the Socialist Party in the 1901 election in Asheville, NC HERE. You will note the Socialists ran candidates for city council, chief of police, tax collector, superintendent of waterworks, and so on — the Socialist Party was a real political party in every way in North Carolina, not a club of half a dozen activists. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...And here is A PIECE from the Statesville [NC] Record And Landmark noting that there was a Local of the Socialist Party of North Carolina in Forsythe County, NC which named a ticket for the 1902 campaign. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so on and so forth. As you can see, a viable history meeting GNG can be built for state units of the Socialist Party for pretty much every state and territory of the United States if the focus is placed on the 1901-1924 period when it was the number 3 party in the United States. Whether the contemporary group calling itself the Socialist Party of North Carolina (SPUSA) meets similar muster is less clear, but tagging on the contemporary organizations to the historical parties is common practice and there's really no reason to go postal on the attempt to do so. They have a legitimate claim to organizational continuity, as I note above. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also some coverage here and there in Gregory S. Taylor, The History of the North Carolina Communist Party. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2009. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't miss the entry in NC Pedia, "Socialist Party of North Carolina], listed in the footnotes. I almost did. This counts to GNG also. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability guidelines (secondary sources) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough unique content to make a useful article separate from the parent organization. It is best not to merge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 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. czar 00:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Washington D.C. Free Speech Rally[edit]

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

Classic recentism and does not meet notability criteria for events. Another reason for deletion: According to the cited sources, this is actually two very separate rallies that have been improperly rolled up into one article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 800 people expected to turn out? What is this? A church fair on a Sunday? There's no lasting notabilty for this, or indeed, any notabilty at all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete A small-town farmer's market or as more attendance and notability than this; these SPA editors have to stop trying to pre-WP:N events that are clearly going to struggle to get to an average "in other news" section. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paltry sourcing and WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider SNOWing. The article does its own self in. If something actually notable ends up happening at or because of the rally, it can always be recreated, but we're not fortune tellers. TimothyJosephWood 20:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 800 people at a rally is hardly a significant rally. If anything, it would be notable for being such a colossal failure compared to rallies from those on the other side of the political spectrum around the same time, but there's no indication from reliable sources describing it as such. Smartyllama (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Applied Rationality[edit]

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

The organization is barely notable; more importantly, it seems to have been the focus of a lot of promotional editing coming from people affiliated with CFAR or with organizations themselves affiliated with CFAR.

I recently removed a great deal of content that was unsourced, editorialized, misleadingly interpreted, and so on and so forth. But I'm thinking that the whole thing should just be nuked. See, for example, the edits from User:Kbog, who seems to also be an (Redacted) with a persistent history of promotionally editing Effective Altruism-related pages and engaging in vicious edit wars to keep their content in place despite principled objections from many editors.

I believe the promotional editing here to be related to this recent incident where a huge ring of promotional editors-for-pay were banned after adding large amounts of poorly-sourced, superfluous content to pages. The comment

The more I look at the editing of Riceissa the more a very clear pattern of advocacy (promotional edits using bad sources or no sources, and edit warring etc to maintain them) appears.

is a succinct description of what seems to be happening more generally and the problem should be dealt with similarly and swiftly.

Fqn9010e0754032 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - there's a bit of coverage, but it's extremely sparse. Is there anywhere good to merge it? Perhaps Machine Intelligence Research Institute, of which it's an offshoot and shares offices with? I was interested to see Riceissa's prospective drafts on various other LessWrong subculture entities. The LW subculture tends enthusiastic rather than "paid promotional" - they sincerely see promotion of LW ideas as being absolutely essential to mitigating existential risk for all humanity. Which probably doesn't make a lot of difference, except they'll be more persistent about it - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to merge it into MIRI or LessWrong? I'd guess the former is more appropriate, for the reasons you mention. GojiBarry (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vipul created the article, but as far as I can see there was no paid editing involved in this particular case (though of course it could still be considered promotional or biased). By the way, in cases such as this one, how much coverage is necessary to establish notability? GojiBarry (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor correction: I did not create the article. My first edit to the page was simply a redirect to a section in another page; later when I saw that what seemed like a complete draft was sitting in the drafts space I moved that over to main space. I didn't create the original draft version (unfortunately I didn't go through the proper process to move it, and somebody deleted the original draft, so I'm not sure who created the original draft). Vipul (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has garnered enough coverageApollo The Logician (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support merging MIRI and LessWrong and this article into a single article, if a suitable name could be found. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea. What about Rationalist movement (currently a redirect to Rationalism)? Fqn9010e0754032 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty big name with extensive historical connotations to appropriate to one weird fringe movement. LessWrong, I'd suggest. (Template:LessWrong was originally Template:Applied rationality, but with the same problem of attempting to appropriate a larger name for itself. The original creator was another sockpuppeting LessWrong fan, account since blocked. It's since stuck at that name.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's true. I agree that merging both MIRI and CFAR into LessWrong seems like the correct solution here. Fqn9010e0754032 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for deleting this kind of article is WP:GNG, not whoever has been editing it or whether you think it is promotional (which it isn't) or negative (which it has been in the past). On Fqn9010e0754032's smear attempt - I'd encourage you to look into the actual history of edit disputes to see what was going on rather than uncritically using them as argument fodder -- Jytdog and I were both trying to reduce and rewrite the same article at approximately the same time, not arguing about what kind of content should be included in the final version or not. The insinuation that I have something to do with Vipul is wrong, I never had anything to do with him. Finally, Fqn9010e0754032 is a single purpose account which was created yesterday, and I've noticed that throwaway accounts attacking LessWrong/CFAR/etc have been on the rise over the last month or two on several websites, so we could both play this game if we wanted to. K.Bog 20:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Describing my editing as a "smear attempt" without a single example of a concretely bad change I made to the page demonstrates that you are not arguing in good faith. Given your extensive history of attempting to delay and sidetrack deletion attempts by engaging participants in tangential conversations and drawing in unnecessary bureaucracy, your clearly extensive ties to the Effective Altruism movement and the "rationalist community", your very suspicious defense of Vipul Naik's paid editing ring, and your bad-faith response to this AfD which accuses me of orchestrating a "smear attempt" without a single concrete illustration of how anything I've done constitutes one (which ironically makes your own response itself a "smear attempt"), well, I don't really think there's much more that needs to be said in response. Fqn9010e0754032 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? You completely misunderstood me. The smear attempt was made upon my account, not the CFAR article. On that note, you should find a single example where I defended Vipul Naik's paid editing ring or started "tangential conversations" to "sidetrack deletion attempts", because I didn't - please don't lie. And if you open an AFD by making accusations of bad faith, you sure can't complain when other people continue that discussion! K.Bog 20:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you appear to be a COI editor, accusing another editor of lying is not the best move to get people onside with your argument - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My 'argument' here, aside from noting the correct criteria for article notability, is simply to call out Fqn9010e0754032 on their behavior and rhetoric. How a user is talking about my "extensive history" on Wikipedia a day after signing up is beyond me. My edit history (which goes back years) covers a wide range of topics and my writing has never been flagged as promotional, so the claims they are making are false and you don't have any reason to accuse me of COI (which I do not have). I ask them not to lie, but whether they are being intentionally or unintentionally wrong is something which I make no claims about. K.Bog 01:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After taking a moment to review the article and rationale, this looks like a pretty clear case. WSJ, Vice, and NYT have covered it in depth, in addition to other sources, so it comfortably passes WP:GNG. The only other reason you gave for deleting the article was that you're afraid that I'll engage in "vicious edit wars" on the content of the article. But I didn't dispute any of the edits you made, and actually I think they were pretty reasonable. They displayed good familiarity with the principles of Wikipedia content and formatting. The article has a little room for improvement -- e.g. the NYT excerpt is not perfectly representative of the source, and we can restore one of the citations -- but overall I'm not complaining. So I don't see what the problem is. K.Bog 06:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for the org's $3,900 4-day seminars. Yes, there's some coverage but mostly as a fad. This is a mere curiosity at this point, and I don't see WP:CORPDEPTH being met. In the current form, the article is promotional and not a value to the project. The notability is marginal so it's best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly meets WP:GNG with in-depth interviews ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the Huffington Post without even mentioning the New York Times or Forbes, along with several other reliable news sources over several years (not just recent history). Regarding the fact that the article has been the subject of promotional editing is not a reason for deletion. At best, it would be a reason to “Protect” the page. Concerning “Edit Was”, again not a reason for deletion. Edit wars happen all the time and are eventually resolved. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Shoessss that GNG is met by substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources over a period of years. I don't think the article in its current state is unreasonably or irreparably promotional. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoessss. ChristianKl (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an organization that's had significant coverage, and the current state of the article does not seem overly promotional to me. --Lockley (talk) 08:04, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan DuCharme[edit]

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

PROD removed by the author of the article. The reasoning was the following: A plain CV (resumé) with no particular indication of significance or importance. A vanity piece and Possible COI (all the hallmarks of a commissioned work per NPP). A plethora of sources does not automatically confer notability. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly, looks like CV ......Sulaimandaud (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The main resemblance to a CV is the style of not writing in complete sentences, which is not enough to disqualify an article. It's a direct translation of a ruWP article, and follows the style of that article--I can read the Russian article and sources, but I do not have the cultural awareness to judge the style of writing. The source of notability would come from having been the CEO of X5 Retail Group, which is certainly notable, as a London Stock Exchange listed company. The sources look like other references for business execs. The Forbes.ru is less substantial than it looks, the kommersant.ru is an "interview" just like the ones familiar to us in English where the interview is just a framework for the individual to say whatever he cares to. But my inclination is to give the benefit of the doubt to the ceo of a major company. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This man is the head of the largest food retailer in Russia - X5 Retail Group. There are a lot of information about them and their work in key Russian media - Vedomosti, Kommersant, TASS, RIA Novosti and others. Now I am completing the corrections to article X5 Retail Group in English. The information in this article is very outdated. It takes a little time. Tell me how to improve the article by showing the importance, but not by going into the advertising format, please. Mikhailalexandr (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:UGLY is not a reason for deletion. DGG and Mikhailalexandr are probably correct re notability. At the very least, it could be redirected/merged to X5 Retail Group, so deletion is never a viable option. Regards So Why 07:12, 3 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 and redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#Season 2 (2015–16). Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sworn to the Sword[edit]

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

Little independent coverage in reliable sources. There is quite a bit in tabloid-ish blog-ish magazines like The Mary Sue, but this does not demonstrate notability. The subject seems to fail WP:GNG. — Quasar G. 12:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 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 09:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the standard for Notability, and almost no coverage in respected sources. Suggest merging or redirecting to Steven Universe 173.239.207.50 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#Season 2 (2015–16) per WP:ATD-R. Lack of reliable sources or stand-alone notability does not mean WP:ATD no longer applies as a policy. Regards So Why 07:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This TV episode has received detailed reviews in two reliable publications, The Mary Sue and The A.V. Club, which makes it pass GNG. There are also recaps/reviews on other sites about whose reliability I am less sure: The Young Folks, idigitaltimes, TVOvermind. Sandstein 08:53, 3 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 List of Steven Universe episodes#Season 1 (2013–15). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose's Scabbard[edit]

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

Has little coverage in reliable secondary sources (although quite a bit in tabloid-ish blog-ish magazines). Seems to fail WP:GNG. — Quasar G. 12:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 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 09:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#Season 1 (2013–15) per WP:ATD-R. Lack of reliable sources or stand-alone notability does not mean WP:ATD no longer applies as a policy. Regards So Why 07:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above without prejudice to recreation when sources similar to those I identified in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sworn to the Sword are found and added. Sandstein 08:55, 3 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 Richard Clifton-Dey. Feel free to take from article history, but nothing is sourced to merge. czar 00:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behemoth's World[edit]

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

Article about a painting by Richard Clifton-Dey whose article claims that His most famous work of art may be Behemoth's World without citing any sources. The article itself failed verification. One reference is to a website that only says "An article on the artist can be found at Wikipedia." The other makes no mention of the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Richard Clifton-Dey. There's a little discussion of this work but generally in the context of the album. Clifton-Dey's article is currently weak, but he got some media coverage in pre-internet days, as much for his children's books as his fantasy art; there's also coverage in science fiction websites but I'm not going to judge which is a reliable source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:13, 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. czar 00:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Duke Mason[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article strikes me as a local figure in West Hollywood who has very little meaningful notability. Its AfD history is unusual. I believe it went through three nominations. The first two were deletes and the last was no consensus. The article has very little interest to most Wikipedians given the low number of watchers but is neverless subject to a fair amount of disruptive editing from IPs. I figure if there is no consensus to delete, then I will remove it from my watchlist and not have to deal with it anymore. Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete funny, it also deleted when he was 14 yrs old. [2]. Yawn. Looks not notable to me. Low level political figure and son of a famous person. LGBT activist sort of. Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long shot, and the article relies heavily on name-dropping. He is a visible activist and may well be notable in a few years, but not now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides this [3] link of 6 years, there is nothing that maintains his notability as for now. Looks like clear case pf WP:TOSOON Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person who vandalized the page a few days ago was a personal friend who had malicious intent. Before then the page hadn't been edited for years, except for occasional edits to update it with relevant information. There are other people with Wikipedia pages who are not notable for any reason other than being celebrity children (Frances Bean Cobain, for instance); I am a celebrity child but have visibility and notability as a writer and activist, in addition to my biological heritage. Like I said, I'm happy to add as many references and external links as possible to my page to further establish my notability, but if you take one look at Google and look at the many mainstream and high profile publications I've both written for and been featured in (Hollywood Reporter, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, OUT, The Advocate, Los Angeles Times), I think it's clear I more than meet the notability criteria based solely on my reputation as a writer and political activist. - James Duke Mason — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:36, 27 June 2017‎ (UTC).

Hi this is James Duke Mason myself here. I don't know if this is the right way for me to contribute to this discussion but I am really frustrated with the way this entire situation has unfolded. The only reason this situation started was because someone decided to vandalize my page multiple times with insults and falsehoods, and therefore it took several edits for me to revert the page back to the way it was. Because of all the activity, one of the administrators noticed it and for some strange reason, even though this page has existed for several years without any debate or discussion, bizarrely decided to start a debate about whether it should be deleted or not. I'm very happy to add as many references as possible to establish my "notability", but after my page has existed for several years without any issue whatsoever, I think it would be strange to delete it now for no reason. Give me some time to include some additional references and please leave my page as it is. I should also add that I've been verified by Twitter which should be a big validator of my notability as a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.37 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Delete & Salt as per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN for his political work and WP:ENTERTAINER for the minor TV appearances, etc. All prior AfD discussions ended decisively as "delete", except the 3rd one, which appears to have ended in "no consensus" solely due to lack of attention (there were no "keep" arguments given). I also suspect this article is a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION due to the article's extensive deletion/recreation history, the creation of its current incarnation by a WP:SPA, and extensive admitted editing and content-policing by its subject (a clear WP:COI). - GretLomborg (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the deletion/recreation history, the subject's interference with this AfD (removing notices and blanking), and demonstrated attitudes shown in his past behavior and comments here; I'm changing my vote to include WP:SALTing the article to prevent wasting time on a 6th AfD after it's inevitable recreation. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering this is the fifth AfD for this BLP, is this page a candidate for salting (WP:SALT), due to its deletion/recreation history? - GretLomborg (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally unfair and uncalled for. I haven't ever edited my Wikipedia entry except to fix it when it was vandalized. It is totally unfair and detrimental to my career to have this article deleted. It has been on Wikipedia for years without any issues, so if you could just please move on from this, that would be great. It really doesn't cost you guys anything to just take this off your watch list and let this go. It would mean the world to me. -James Duke Mason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.37 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Detrimental to your career? You must be kidding. This is an encyclopedia, not a career advancement website. Please use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or LinkedIn for such purposes. We do not care about your career needs at all. We care about encyclopedic content which is in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - significant may be but certainly not notable . Appears to be a case of self aggrandisement. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think there's a real reason to delete this page after it has existed for several years now without any controversy. I'm verified on Twitter, have been written about because of my notability in various major publications, and the only reason we're having this debate is because my page was vandalized- is it fair for me to be punished because of someone else's vandalism? I think this whole discussion should be dropped and we can all move on with our lives. Happy to add as many references to my page as necessary to establish my notability. I'm a prominent activist/writer and should be on Wikipedia based purely on those criteria. -James Duke Mason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.37 (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

You said yourself that your page has been vandalized, and the nominator states that's been happening for some time and he's tired of cleaning it up, so it's hardly been up for "years without any issue whatsoever." - GretLomborg (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we're having this conversation, but still. Look, the wikipedia has strict guidelines for establishing people's notability and from what I see you fails them. The guideline are here: Wikipedia:Notability (people). The fact that article was there for years and no one looked at it does not make it passing the criteria for inclusion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person who vandalized the page a few days ago was a personal friend who had malicious intent. Before then the page hadn't been edited for years, except for occasional edits to update it with relevant information. There are other people with Wikipedia pages who are not notable for any reason other than being celebrity children (Frances Bean Cobain, for instance); I am a celebrity child but have visibility and notability as a writer and activist, in addition to my biological heritage. Like I said, I'm happy to add as many references and external links as possible to my page to further establish my notability, but if you take one look at Google and look at the many mainstream and high profile publications I've both written for and been featured in (Hollywood Reporter, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, OUT, The Advocate, Los Angeles Times), I think it's clear I more than meet the notability criteria based solely on my reputation as a writer and political activist. - James Duke Mason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.37 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Delete. There are no particularly strong claims of notability here, nor is there the depth of reliable source coverage about him needed to clear WP:GNG for any of it. Apart from one blurb in the annual Out100, this is otherwise based entirely on blogs, primary sources, glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, and Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself — none of which are sources that can assist in building notability.

James, you appear to be taking this way too personally above — what you need to understand is that our notability and sourcing requirements are not meant to punish you, or to dismiss the work you're doing as unimportant, but to protect you from the negative consequences of having a Wikipedia article. The very fact that you had to correct vandalism on the article is exactly the issue: because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we cannot guarantee that every possible anybody is editing with good intentions. Our articles are regularly edited to insert total nonsense, unsourced personal criticism, outright libel, inside jokes, total hijacking to be about somebody else entirely, and other stuff that belongs nowhere near a Wikipedia article — and our quality control model, in which the only mechanism we have to keep the article proper and correct is the oversight of other editors, (a) depends on reliable source coverage so that we can properly sort out what's true and what isn't, and (b) does not work well on low-traffic topics. An inappropriate edit to Barack Obama will get caught within seconds, because thousands of people have his article watchlisted, but an inappropriate edit to a lower-profile topic could potentially linger in the article for weeks, causing damage to their reputation. Which is precisely why we have certain specific minimum standards of accomplishment that have to be met, and certain specific minimum standards of reliable sourcing that have to be present to support them, before an article becomes earned: that's how we protect our article subjects from the damage that having a Wikipedia article can cause.

And no, the standards you would have to meet for a Wikipedia article to become appropriate just aren't being shown here. Again, this is not criticism of you — it's for your protection. The fact that you've raised actual vandalism to this article as a thing you had to personally get involved in correcting reveals precisely why we can't keep it — until you've reached a high enough plateau of public visibility that there are a few dozen Wikipedia editors keeping an eye on the article instead of just two or three, we have no other way to control the risk of the vandalism returning again.

Also, under our conflict of interest rules, the question of whether you pass our inclusion standards or not is not for you to decide about yourself. People quite routinely lack objectivity about their own work, so if we allowed people to decide for themselves whether they cleared our notability standards or not, we'd just be a public relations platform and not an encyclopedia. So, again, you need to not take this personally: it's not criticism of you or what you do, you're just not famous enough among the general public that an open encyclopedia, in which the content creation model is "anybody can do absolutely anything at all, even if it breaks the rules" and the quality control model is "other people have to see what's already been done before anything can actually be done to fix it post facto", can properly guarantee you the necessary level of maintenance. (And no, Wikipedia isn't the place to make yourself more famous, either: our role here is to follow the media coverage of people who have already attained the necessary level of fame, not to help people create their media presence.) Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually the 5th deletion discussion. The first version of the article was deleted back in 2006 when it was named James Mason and then had his mom's name and son of in parenthesis. He is an utterly unnotable politician. Members of city boards, especially in non-major cities like West Hollywood, are not notable. Even if he had won in the city council race he would not be notable. Being a US house page is not a sign of notability. Nothing else comes close to showing notability. Whatever the claim about being an "official surrogate" means I am not sure of, but it does not sound like an actual claim to notability. The last discussion closed as no consensus, but that was mainly from non-discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment J. D. Mason needs to better understand Wikipedia policies on not creating articles on yourself, that Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion, and related rules. Lists of people who are thought to potentially have impact should not be treated as reliable sources, especially since they have become so common of late. Appearing on these lists is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anneliese. If a stand-alone article is possible, it can always be reverted and created instead of the redirect. So Why 07:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annaliese[edit]

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

unreferenced 7 years, no examples, not going anywhere. at best, redirect to Anna Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or better, Anneliese.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:APONOTE, there are no notable people with the name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Anneliese of which it is a variant, and add to that article a list of persons with the name (currently Annaliese Dayes and Anneliese Seidel). Noting that there are several articles on close variants of this name that will need to be merged. – Uanfala 09:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. In trying to research the name I came up with everything from a Latin origin to Hebrew in root. Along with representation of other Scandinavian and Germanic cultures. Also saw were it was a combination of Anna and Elizabeth but on the other hand saw where experts stated it was just a different spelling for Anneliese which has its own meaning. Give me a couple of weeks and I think the piece can be rewritten with reliable sourcing and accurate information. But for now, Delete. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:39, 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 delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G&SLE[edit]

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

Reason Nikolaihawkes2 (talk) 01:26, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7 - author blanked. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 01:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7 or A3. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G7, as the author not only blanked it but is the one who initiated this AfD nomination. I'll add that the same user also created Guest Engineering, subsequently blanked that as well — and started a malformed AfD nomination for that article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author either means well and is completely clueless or is trying to create work for Wikipedia volunteers and admins while looking innocent and clueless. I am guessing it is the first. A competency block is not yet in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Vihar, Guntur[edit]

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

This article may not meet Wikipedian standards as per WP:Notability, It may meet WP:Geoland but is too small locality to have a seperate article— IM3847 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, oh my, i see by gmaps its next to "Rabbit Hill Forest Park", bunnies and trains, what more do you want?Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:GEOLAND is the relevant part of the relevant notability guideline, and notability is not a function of size. That said, the place is verifiably there, but English-language reliable sources are thin ([4] [5]). I'm not finding much to verify the status of this railway colony. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional piece on a housing development in Guntur. This is not a village. Under the WP:GEOLAND guideline neighbourhoods need to meet a higher standard that individual villages and towns. Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. Normally, they are briefly discussed , if at all, in the city article, which here would be Guntur. The text land, as existed before 26 April 2008 can be seen in the photograph suggests that this was copied from another work, possibly a brochure for the development, so WP:COPYVIO might apply. --Bejnar (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the sourcing is inadequate to overcome NFF at this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendra Sarkar[edit]

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

Per WP:NFILM. Non-noteable unreleased film without any significant coverage of the production of the film. Comatmebro (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nepali movie normally do not cover the ongoing-production of movies. So considering the coverage of release of movie information in reputable newspaper like this, I think the article should stay for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishal Shrestha (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The brief My Republica notice offered above covers the announcement of film plans at end-May and says that neither a director nor some of the lead actors have been arranged. As specified in the first sentence of WP:NFF, such circumstances indicate that this is too soon for an article. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per user AllyD; and as per WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NFF.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bloomington (film). Primefac (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Cardoso[edit]

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

Non-notable director. Directed one film in 2010. Can't find much else about her. Yintan 19:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 18:15, 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) 01:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bloomington (film); a plausible search term, but not apparently notable enough for an individual article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 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. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hagmeijer[edit]

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

Fails WP:Academic. Could not find any secondary sources on him. No evidence that he or his work have met the criteria. Rogermx (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A worthy professional, but with a GS h-index of 8 (one of 15 might be expected for this average-cite field) WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 18:16, 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) 01:28, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namit Tiwari[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. The sources are almost entirely lowgrade. Fails WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:16, 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 19:12, 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) 01:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bagga[edit]

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

ceo of not notable company (BizX). without page on wiki Ain soph (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 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) 00:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV-style article. Rentier (talk) 12:01, 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 delete. 00:00, 1 July 2017 DGG deleted page Kishu Tirathrai (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) czar 00:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kishu Tirathrai[edit]

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

2 results in News. this is not enough Ain soph (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 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) 00:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 00:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Michigan[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC. No significant coverage from reliable sources known for editorial oversight or accuracy. Articles posted on "Global Buzz Live"[6], "Focusa2z"[7], :"Alternative Media Forum"[8], and "General Knowledge News Mission"[9] are identical PR releases, while fluff articles on BuzzFeed [10] and SheKnows[11] have the explicit disclaimer that the contributions are user-submitted without editorial oversight. Judging from the similar dates of most articles, a publicity push started in mid to late May. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, and it is too soon for this person to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's obviously self-promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Michigan should remain in Wikipedia[edit]

These 2 links bear more reliability for this article.

1. http://www.tbs-alumni.com/gene/main.php?base=22&id_news=900&action=details

2. http://www.sheknows.com/community/health/french-model-david-michigan-teams-miss-tattoo-france-2017

Gendelafrog (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this pretty funny, but it doesn't meet notability requirements. The Buzzfeed references are community content, not by Buzzfeed staff (who might count as reliable sources). As far as I can tell the refs are all self-published/"community"/advertorial/promotional content. A Google search found nothing better. The article is desperately promotional, which isn't always grounds for deletion, but there's no indication of coverage in good quality sources, and even with sourcing it would require heavy editing to be encyclopedic. Is there some kind of international body like the Nobel Prize Committee that adjudicates on "the best tattoo in the world"? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable[edit]

http://www.tbs-alumni.com/gene/main.php?base=22&id_news=900&action=details

https://indilens.com/298256-exclusive-interview-david-michigan-and-personal-trainer-profession/

http://www.valueyournetwork.com/decouvrez-notre-influenceur-de-la-semaine-le-blogueur-fitness-david-michigan/

http://lesreportersdunet.com/index.php/2017/06/12/premiere-edition-a-paris/

https://patch.com/new-york/portwashington/new-ways-improving-yourself

http://newsdog.today/a/article/59273ece12907144eb68b3f5/

@ Colapeninsula Above articles are saying exactly the opposite of what you have said here. Kalamya (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

huffingtonpost reports[edit]

Is not huffingtonpost a relaible source ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-is-accountability-so-important-for-a-high-performance_us_594952bde4b09edb4c91f2ea

Kalamya (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 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) 00:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a clear case of WP:PROMO with language such as: "...recognized as one of the top mental fitness trainer in the world as well as having one of the most aesthetic body!" etc, with a good dose of fringe in there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 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. The keep !vote was discounted a bit as the standard is multiple significant roles. No new comments after a week. No prejudice against recreation assuming sources showing notability emerge once the show airs. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reylynn Caster[edit]

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

Not sure about the coverage of her career which I think does not meet WP:NACTOR. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Agreed, TOOSOON. Probably will be okay in a year or so. South Nashua (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has gotten a lot of coverage for getting a role as a series regular on a new CBS series. Was profiled on the Wichita Eagle website.tomburbine (talk) 23:00, 25 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) 00:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomburbine: WP:NACTOR clearly states a subject is notable if xe has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions which obviously the subject of this afd fails to meet—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:33, 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 Deleted but unclosed, nac, SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seaun Eddy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 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.

[1] ttps://books.google.ca/books?id=dIgwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=North+Carolina+College+Hank+Elkins&source=bl&ots=0KkkidrHLZ&sig=z3GNsDBhGnsidEEeYQH74XmOUbA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimvoC-m7nUAhVY-2MKHXMdB30Q6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=North%20Carolina%20College%20Hank%20Elkins&f=false

[1]