Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 June 4 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CocoIce

[edit]
CocoIce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Neither her nor her musical works have been discussed in significant detail. She is simply an up-and-coming artist who participated in the Big Brother Nigeria competition.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 10 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 Skulduggery Pleasant#The End of the World. (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skulduggery Pleasant: The End of the World

[edit]
Skulduggery Pleasant: The End of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely a plot summary and nothing else that isn't already included in the parent article for the series. -- AlexTW 23:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: The thought of redirecting it actually crossed my mind about ten minutes after I created this AfD, but I wasn't sure how to proceed, given that I'd opened it. Should I just go ahead with it and request this AfD be closed? -- AlexTW 04:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support that; with no delete votes I believe you're allowed to do so. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- AlexTW 23:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bays

[edit]
Tim Bays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: insufficiently notable academic/educator. Quis separabit? 23:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  23:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT, although sources do establish notablility. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 23:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Ewing

[edit]
Eve Ewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

vanity article JuniperJones (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kundby case

[edit]
Kundby case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One person imprisoned for a failed terrorist plot. The two Danish sources are both from May 2017. No indication that this event has the "lasting, historical significance" required for notability satisfying WP:EVENTCRITERIA. PamD 22:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well, I bet that User:PamD isn't from Denmark. This case has been discussed very broadly in all Danish major newspapers since January 2016.[1][2] The sentence she got is a milestone in Danish law decision. This case will have a major effect on future judgement regarding terrorist attacks. It started a big debate in Denmark about islam and refugees, being part of the arguments to close the border to Germany.[3] It was one of Denmark's biggest terrorist cases, with a large influence of the future of Denmark. So of course it is important.[4]--Rævhuld (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended commentary, discussion, references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

References

  1. ^ "FAKTA: Her er sigtelserne i kundbysagen". www.b.dk (in Norwegian). 2016-03-30. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  2. ^ Dalsgaard, Louise; Toft, Emma (2017-05-18). "Kundby-sagen: Anklagemyndighed anker dom til landsretten". DR (in Danish). Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  3. ^ "Forsvarer kræver forbud mod nye beviser i Kundbysagen". nyheder.tv2.dk (in Norwegian). 2017-05-08. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  4. ^ Larsen, Rolf (2017-05-05). "Kundbysagen: Retten tillader de nye beviser". Netavisen Sjælland (in Norwegian). Retrieved 2017-06-03.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment."Events are probably notable if they have [...] a significant lasting effect" in WP:EVENTCRIT. Well, influence on refugee politics, law and anti terror acts is a significant lasting effect.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment."Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)" in WP:EVENTCRIT. Well, you mean like coverage in all Danish newspapers in nearly two years? With a lot of analyzes and a lot of re-analyzes? Check, check and check! I have already linked some of the sources up here.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure to meet WP:LASTING and other criteria on WP:EVENT. Though a quick google search, I could find no national news sources in the U.S. that have even addressed this event. Sure, it may be different in Denmark but there are many similar incidents that have had coverage by English-speaking sources like the 2016 Balkans terrorism plot so that's not enough to say it's worth an article of its own. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content, more references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Please read the links you have linked to. We do not discriminate against nations here. Just because a US media does or does not cover a case, doesn't mean it is or isn't relevant. "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted" WP:DIVERSE. According to Wikipedia notability guidelines, a national coverage is enough to be notable. Not to mention that it HAS been covered by international media![1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] I have added international newspapers. From the UK, Sweden and Germany. So either Wikipedia is for America only or we agree on the USA not being the centre of the universe.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Teen terrorist: 17yo Danish girl obsessed with jihad convicted of planning to bomb Jewish school". RT International. 2017-06-03. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  2. ^ Barrett, Michael (2017-05-04). "New evidence delays Danish Kundby girl terrorism case". The Local. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  3. ^ Cremer, Justin (2017-02-10). "Denmark files terrorism charge against 16-year-old girl". The Local. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  4. ^ Charlton, Corey (2016-03-08). "Danish 16-year-old girl planned to bomb Jewish and public schools in Copenhagen". Daily Mail Online. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  5. ^ "New evidence delays Danish Kundby girl terrorism case". News. 2017-06-03. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  6. ^ "Danish News in English". The Post – The Copenhagen Post – Danish news in english. 2014-10-10. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  7. ^ "Sechs Jahre Gefängnis für „Kundby-Mädchen"". Der Nordschleswiger (in German). 2017-05-18. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  8. ^ Dose, Dominik (2017-05-16). "Kundby-Fall: 17-jährige Dänin wegen Terrorplanungen schuldig gesprochen". shz (in German). Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  9. ^ sz-online. "Harte Strafe für eine Möchtegern-Terroristin". SZ-Online (in German). Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  10. ^ Rundschau, Frankfurter (2017-03-17). "IS-Konvertitin: Minderjähriger Dänin droht harte Strafe". Frankfurter Rundschau (in German). Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  11. ^ "Terroråtalad flicka i rätten: "Det var spännande"". Aftonbladet. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  12. ^ "Dansk rättegång inleds mot 17-årig tjej som misstänks för att ha planerat terrordåd". svenska.yle.fi (in Swedish). 2017-04-19. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  13. ^ "Flicka döms till fängelse för terrorbrott". HD (in Swedish). 2017-05-18. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  14. ^ Nyheter, SVT (2016-03-08). "16-årig flicka misstänks för bombplaner mot judisk skola". SVT Nyheter (in Swedish). Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  15. ^ "En 16-årig flicka ska ha planerat skoldåd". Expressen (in Swedish). 2016-03-08. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
  •  Comment.Here some notability criteria this case has:
  •  Comment. "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" ... like major changes in politics, law and counter terrorism. WP:LASTING
  •  Comment. "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." ... coverage since January 2016, the last article was published today. And there will soon come more articles about this event, since the case has re-opened. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
  •  Comment. "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable" ... every Danish newspaper wrote about it since January 2016. With a lot of analysis of lawyers, psychologists and doctors. WP:INDEPTH
  •  Comment. "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted" ... well, we got that. [[WP:DIVERSE}}
 Comment. So what do we learn? It is notable.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rævhuld I have read the links that I mentioned. The Daily Mail and RT are not WP:RS and I'm not arguing that it did not get substantial coverage in Denmark but WP:GEOSCOPE states "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article" so that can't be the only reason for creating an article. Furthermore, you nominated the 2017 Portland train attack for deletion despite it getting far more coverage than this, so we can't have a double standard when it comes to what is notable and what is not. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your train attack DIDN'T get more coverage! It ONLY got more coverage in the USA! Not to mention that your train attack wasn't terrorism - this case is about terrorism and so more important. A lot of your news (even those you write articles about here on Wikipedia) are ONLY published in the USA. And you are not the centre of the universe, by the way. So either we make Wikipedia for America only, Donald Trumpish, or we follow the notability guidelines. And as you clearly can read: national coverage is enough. There is no rule there, claiming the entire event has to be heavily covered in US media to be relevant. Wikipedia is for all of us, not only for Americans. Wikipedia is meant to be for all of us! Coverage in national or international newspapers aren't the only things to look for. Lasting effect is another point. And you are right, it doesn't have a lasting effect on America, so therefore it is irrelevant ... for you.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rævhuld: Please watch your WP:TONE, this is supposed to be a formal conversation. First, the train attack did not get only get coverage in the United States. The Guardian and The Independent are both British publications that reported on it. Al Jazeera is a Qatari source that reported on it. Second, it doesn't matter whether an event was terrorism or not since terrorism is not some magic label that automatically makes something notable. There have been over 125,000 terrorist incidents since 1970 and they all don't get their own articles. This wasn't even an attack, it was just a plot. Furthermore, "terrorism" is a notoriously ambiguous word since events with blatant political motivations such as the Charleston church shooting and Quebec City mosque shooting are never labelled terrorism. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am referring to your yards of unnecessary commentary which is verging on badgering other editors. Please remove or hat all your extraneous remarks. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Could you please tell me which comment exactly? I don't know how to hat anything, but if you think I did anything against the WP:TONE feel free to hat it. PS! I haven't attacked any editor. The only thing I said was that an event doesn't have to be in an American newspaper to be notable. Which was an argument by one of the editors.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question about moving article while AfD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Can you help?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
@Rævhuld: to the best of my knowledge, it can be moved. The redirect that will be left behind will make sure the deletion discussion stay linked. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understanding that it is etiquette to wait until AfD concludes. I have seen AfD discussions invalidated after a page move, and early in my career a terrorism or crime-related article I was editing (I don't recall which, but it was a hotly disputed topic) I was accused of evildoing for making an obvious and uncontroversial move to a new title. Better wait.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 4 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 {{db-author}} Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ups and Downs of Thaddeus Lowe

[edit]
The Ups and Downs of Thaddeus Lowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First (self published) book by non-notable author. Yintan  20:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and G5. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Medit16. Mz7 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Embrace (Band)

[edit]
Blue Embrace (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Not completely WP:MYSPACEBAND but not meeting the music notability criteria (yet) either. Yintan  20:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 3 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. There's reasonably clear consensus to delete, even after evaluating the sources found by Ammodramus. I see that Draft:Rivigo redirects here, which seems to be a violation of WP:CROSSNAMESPACE, and in anycase, WP:G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) applies, so I'm going to delete that too.

There were a couple of suggestions to salt this title, but I don't see any consensus there, so I'm not going to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed this before, but the nifty javascript automation tools found the redirect and deleted it automatically. Software making my life easier. How about that? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivigo

[edit]
Rivigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertisement. Trivial references- - just announcement and PR. Based on the information provided, thee's no reason to expect better. Recreated several times., by the same single purpose account DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It is true that I have made a few modifications to the draft but that was to incorporate all the suggestions given by the editors. I removed all the content that was deemed as promotional. You can see from the history why each edit was made. The sources that I have used are reputable. I have just made another edit and cited another source. Requesting you to review the same. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it had moved back and forth from draft to mainspace, but never been actually deleted. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DGG. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Could you please let me know which part of the article do you believe is promotional? I have just stated the facts with references. It does not even have any part which shows the company in positive light. Please let me know so that I can improve upon that bit. Thank you. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There exist various articles on Wikipedia which have a similar structure to the article under discussion. Hiree, Peppermint Hotels, OYO Rooms, Treebo Hotels, Future Supply Chains, TempoGo, Credihealth to name a few. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirmit Arora: Thank you for providing a list of other articles that can be nominated for deletion :) in the meantime, allow me to direct your attention to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which applies to your suggestion. Many thanks! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: As per your suggestions, I have edited and tried improving the page. Requesting you to check and provide your feedback. Thank you. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nirmit Arora A topic must reference multiple independent sources to meet the criteria for notability. The sources listed do not meet the criteria. The content of this article at the current time is, for me, a secondary issue. For example:
In summary, there is only one (weak) acceptable source listed. Multiple (two at a minimum) sources are required. This dealstreetasia article might be acceptable - it appears to qualify as a reliable secondary source but I would be more satisfied it another editor confirms this to be the case. If another source can be found, I'll likely be satisfied and will change my !vote to Keep. -- HighKing++ 11:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: Thank you for providing the detailed information regarding the criteria. Much appreciated.
I have added a few references as per the guidelines provided by you. I request you to check if these are satisfactory. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nirmit Arora, please read WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Preferably, avoid any sources that contain photos and quotations from the company founders or other company officers, or sources that use any "announcements" as news stories (as they're simply rehashing Press Releases) including articles with phrases like "Rivigo announced" or "The CEO announced", etc. Avoid announcements of funding. Avoid announcements of people being hired or fired. Avoid lists such as "Top 10 companies that will definitely go big" or such stuff. Sources must be "intellectually independent" and sources that wholly rely on information from the company and their officers do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. The new sources you've added all fail for one (or more) reasons as listed above or in WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. Also, always attribute an article to where it was first published. This article might appear "intellectually independent" but it is copied from this article and the author is an employee of Rivigo. -- HighKing++ 13:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: I would like to thank you one again for your patience and your assistance in improving the subject under discussion.
I have removed the previous references and added three new ones which I believe fit the bill. I request you to please check the last three references in the list. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in my opinion, perhaps the second one of the newest references meet the criteria. The indiatimes.com article doesn't as it is a selection of profiles of "startups" including Rivigo - I regard these as advertorials as each profile is complete with photo-of-founder and with headings like "X Factor" and "Moonshot Year". The livemint article is potentially OK - even though there are quotes from a company officer, the article appears intellectually independent and doesn't appear to be an advertorial and provides information on the usage of FASTags. The Bloombergquint article is only a mention in passing and fails the criteria. So I would say you have two weakish sources (but I'd prefer to wait for feedback from other editors on those sources before !voting Keep. For now, I've withdrawn my Delete !vote). -- HighKing++ 10:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: Thanks a lot for your prompt response, for making me more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works, and lastly for improving the draft on the subject under discussion. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should evaluate the sources found by Nirmit Arora.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: WP:SALT - I am unable to understand why this article should be salted when the article has never been recreated. It has moved between the draft space and the main space after incorporation of the suggestions made by the editors.
WP:MILL - Again I fail to understand why the subject under discussion is common or ordinary when there are sources which state otherwise. For example, the pact with the government or the introduction of FASTags.
WP:SPAM - The only reason the I believe this can be considered as spam is due to the consecutive citations at the end of the article. Those were added during my discussion above with user HighKing. I will remove the unnecessary ones from the article. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss new sources Ammodramus mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 19:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There seems to be a consensus not to *delete* this information, and people want it kept in some form. Between the idea of merging and integrating with Internet censorship in India however there is less agreement. Defaulting to a keep, with any merge discussions to take place on the talk page or other venues to seek more consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Websites blocked in India

[edit]
Websites blocked in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article already covered in Internet censorship in India. Capitals00 (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I merged the important content to Internet censorship in India#Blocked websites as well. Capitals00 (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 19:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone even read the (sometimes erratic and/or nonsense, regularly badly sourced) "wisdom" on said page?--*thing goes (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To generate clearer consensus how to handle this page since multiple different proposals were made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 19:46, 3 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 . Materialscientist (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Performance Plan

[edit]
Academic Performance Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional description of normal teaching method. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yintan  19:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I accept that the previous precedents set were for pages that had at least some non-boilerplate information on them. However, some of these pages already have potential candidates declaring an interest - especially London. The argument for deletion would be much stronger for pages that were not guaranteed to be eventually created. That is not the case here and the keep camp has pointed to a policy page that explicitly allows this kind of article. SpinningSpark 12:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tees Valley mayoral election, 2020

[edit]
Tees Valley mayoral election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article with no content and is far too far in to the future, it should be deleted now and recreated in the future. This fails policy on future articles which are nothing more than speculation, the essay Wikipedia:Too soon, should also be read here. The article also has no reliable source media coverage and any which would be generated at this stage would be nothing more than WP:ROUTINE, because the election is simply far to far in the future.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are virtually identical in nature to the main article being nominated, and would if listed separately have identical reasoning for deletion:

Liverpool City Region mayoral election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
West Midlands mayoral election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London mayoral election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London Assembly election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sport and politics (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The articles as they currently stand have no content at all, this needs to be rectified, as simply having empty articles is pointless, and of no benefit. This is way too soon, for these articles, and nothing more than speculation, and content free. Waiting 2 years for content is absurd as reason to have an empty mood. Sport and politics (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that the articles in question require expanding, rather than deleting. CarlDurose (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles being proposed for deletion are national elections, and all of the articles which are non-national elections which were proposed for deletion were far closer to the actual event occurring, and had content on the pages. These pages are empty pages and nearly three years away, this is way too soon, as there is no information to go on the pages, other than wild speculation. Sport and politics (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no actual arguments to keep empty articles hanging around for years, put forward here, the previous consensus' was we have had the previous elections now. That is hardly a compelling reason based on sound policy to keep articles with no information hanging around. Quoting WP:Crystal directly here "are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable". These articles clearly fall in that clause. There s nothing which can be said about the articles, beyond they are happening in 2020. Sport and politics (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Jewish Center Day Camp

[edit]
Hillcrest Jewish Center Day Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorially toned page on an unremarkable day camp. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Mrhillcrest with no other contributions outside this topic. Going by the user name, it's likely to have been a representative of the org itself. The copy reflects that; it belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Content userfied and article converted to redirect. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Christoyannopoulos

[edit]
Alexandre Christoyannopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

French–Greek academic without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent (third-party) sources. (?) Only outside coverage besides first-party sources is a BBC interview. As for the scholar notability guideline, he is a lecturer with library holdings less than 70 for his top book (the book is not independently notable based on reliable reviews either). Could potentially redirect to Christian anarchism, which attributes him a few times by name (perhaps added by same user?), but it's still an awkward target, hence the deletion recommendation. czar 15:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 15:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 15:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar 15:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not sure how to use Worldcat author pages properly, but it looks to me like the page you linked doesn't include all of his works. (worldcat and google scholar) It also looks to me like Christian anarchism : a political commentary on the gospel, has 404 library holdings. Another criteria: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." 113 citations, 91 of which are since 2012. (Google Scholar) He may meet another criterion based on the popularity of his works in Christian Anarchist zines, etc., "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." However, this is difficult to document. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even still, per the general notability guideline, we need reliable sources that go into any sort of depth on his life and work. We don't even have any major reviews for Christian Anarchism... czar 21:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sondra.kinsey, thanks for the reviews. I'd be comfortable with redirecting to an article on his book (Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel) based on the sources. (Don't see enough for a biographical article, though.) P.S. What database did you use to find these? Edit: Nevermind czar 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Believe it or not, I missed that list completely, and wish I had seen in sooner. I used EBSCOhost through my local university library (a great resource), and don't recall which databases precisely (it searches multiple simultaneously). I support a move to Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I started reading some of the reviews, but I'm realizing this is going to need a major rewrite to focus on the book and incorporate perspectives of various reviewers. I would like to userfy it by moving the page into my userspace until I can read more reviews and write an article worthy of mainspace. In the meantime, Alexandre Christoyannopoulos should redirect to Christian anarchism, in which he is repeatedly mentioned. Okay? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, but we can also just gut the article in mainspace, leaving the references and a stub that you can expand. Either is fine, but if you don't want to work in mainspace, I'd recommend redirecting the current version and building the book article in your userspace separately. Then we can always change the redirect target later. (Also note that many of those source may not be reliable if they aren't coming from publications or academic journals with an editorial process and reputation for checking facts, so I wouldn't use the weaker of the refs.) czar 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

André Migner

[edit]
André Migner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:59, 8 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. SoWhy 08:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Monaco

[edit]
List of hospitals in Monaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pointless list article - there is only one general hospital in Monaco, and one specialist institution. Rathfelder (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That template is about half redlinks anyway, so I don't see how that is a big issue. It's more a problem with the template. Where there is only one or two hospitals it would be better for the template to directly link them, or else merge the material somewhere else where it can be linked. SpinningSpark 13:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about Princess Grace Hospital Centre. List articles are only helpful if there is, at least potentially, a list.Rathfelder (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Non-resident Indians

[edit]
List of Non-resident Indians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The scope of this list is too large for it to be genuinely useful to a reader. "Too large to be useful" is one of the things that WP:CSC warns against. In this case, even if the list is not already too large, there are millions of non-resident Indians, and probably hundreds of thousands of notable non-resident Indians. This list isn't complete, could never be complete, and would be far too large before it would ever be complete. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 3 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. As always, if future events (and coverage in WP:RS) unfold, this can be recreated at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clandell Cetoute

[edit]
Clandell Cetoute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage of this player from independent, reliable sources. It seems like his only claim to fame is declaring for the 2017 NBA draft as an underclassmen, which doesn't meet any notability standard nor does it indicate he meets WP:GNG. There are no rules about who can apply for the draft, anyone can do it, even a lower-division player like Cetoute. Down the road, maybe he has a successful professional career and meets GNG, but he has not met notability standards as a college player. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case several other articles related to the draft need to be deleted as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamekrizeni (talk • contribs) 15:50, 03 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true but most of those who starred at higher-profile schools got enough press coverage to meet GNG. It's a case-by-case thing. Rikster2 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but keep an eye out for future progress, just to be safe. No one, and I do mean no one that I'm aware of, even mentions Clandell Cetoute as a potential draft candidate for any team in the 2017 NBA Draft. However, there have been times where I was genuinely surprised about the NBA Draft beforehand (Tanguy Ngombo in 2011, anyone?), so you never know with these cases. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at some point, he gets onto either an NBA team (if only as a two-way affiliate or something like that) or finds some success in the upcoming NBA Gatorade League season moving forward (assuming he even gets to that point altogether). Therefore, while I feel no qualms about deleting this article altogether, it would be wise to remember some of this information in the near future, just in case he does find some success in his professional career moving forward. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 04:02, 8 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. SpinningSpark 13:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Clear (software development)

[edit]
Crystal Clear (software development) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly written. Poorly sourced. Tagged for PROD in 2006... but the tag was deleted without explanation by an IP. Yaris678 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonably clear and simple explanation of the Crystal Clear Methodology that would give a starting point for someone wanting to go further but I do note that it has barely been updated in the last ten years. The page gets around 30k views per year but Scrum (another methodology) got 1.3 Million views. I also think it could have more references that just Cockburn's book - David Waters 03:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Elizabeth Tillman

[edit]
Emma Elizabeth Tillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources in this article comprise only unreliable minor websites or blogs, or interviews with the subject. There are no sources in mainstream media that treat the subject in depth. Fails WP:CREATIVE Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 3 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. SpinningSpark 13:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Cliff Yacht Club

[edit]
Sea Cliff Yacht Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 15:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a sports club/team more than 100 years old that hosted world and continental championships and whose athletes (sailors) have won several world championships. There are articles in WP about soccer, hockey, basketball, lacrosse, etc. teams with much less relevance. Sailing is not such a popular sport as others, but I believe a serious encyclopedia must include all sports.--Banderas (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently personal opinions matter very less,unless backed up by policies or WP:RS demonstrating notability.Winged Blades Godric 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T/C) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An entity exists for over hundred years.And voila!--it is notable!Winged Blades Godric 15:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All Keep !votes call to the spirit of notability (which is something I can understand; a 100 year old yacht club should be notable, and should have reliable sources available); unfortunately, that's not what should be considered relevant in Afd discussions; I would suggest that future !voters directly refer to GNG/ORG guidelines to support their !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 12:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's all very well saying that sources should exist, but come on - let's see them. The GNG does not ask people to cross their fingers and hope that sources exist somewhere. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a surprising amount of history in this book. This March 1951 issue of the periodical MotorBoating has a one-page article about a type of sailboat designed by the yacht club. In general, Boating, Cruising World, MotorBoating, and (for brief mentions in the last 19th century) Outing have regular references to the club; some of these are trivial coverage, but there are enough major events there (such as their involvement in establishing the International Catamaran Challenge Trophy), I think, fairly simple to establish. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shakeela Salim

[edit]
Shakeela Salim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No inherent notability in being a ward member of a Gram panchayat, the subject in question has not held a post higher then a ward member . She is one of fifteen ward members of this village [3] [4] in the Gram panchayat, Cant seem to find any coverage in the English media maybe someone can check out local Malayalam media but for now she fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN  FITINDIA  12:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. A ward member would ordinarily not be famous beyond the handful of houses they represent. BSP has no presence in Kerala and being a member from the party is therefore impressive (which is the reason why a ward member is in the State Executive), though nothing exists to pass WP:GNG. Probably made by some WP:COI editor as the editor's name has the constituency name appended to it to form the username.Jupitus Smart 16:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ucmate app

[edit]
Ucmate app (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no reliable/independent/secondary sources about it Blue Edits (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS coverage. Refs provided are download sites or user editable sites, and thus not independent coverage. As noted above, article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable software and also a promotional article - "one of the best known applications". SL93 (talk) 17:20, 4 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 India's Got Talent. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Saha

[edit]
Kunal Saha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Saha fulfills the rules of WP:MUSICBIO.

1. There are coverage on Kunal Saha in national newspapers like Telegraphindia, TimesofIndia.

2. He has done several foreign tours.Saha has represented India at One Asia, a concert organised by the consulate general of Japan to commemorate 60 years of diplomatic relationship between Japan and India and this has significant coverage in newspapers.

3. He is an esteemed performer in All India radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmlanDas (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. WP:SIGCOV AmlanDas (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:19, 3 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. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mensura Jahić

[edit]
Mensura Jahić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical promotional spam.Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 11:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of sources presented by the aforesaid !voter Winged Blades Godric 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref-1--Discusses an exhibition in remembr5ance of a Sufi poet.Her name is mentioned trivially just once--in the list of the people whose works are exhibited.
  • Ref 2-- This covers Adis Lukac; not our subject!She just finds a lone mention as a participant.
  • Ref 3--Discusses the subject in a short article.May be paid promotion.
  • ref 4--Something of the type of a mini-interview discusing her work featured in a magzine.
Sorry, but these does not help her pass WP:GNG.Winged Blades Godric 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I understand this right, what notability she has seems to be primarily as a photographer, and primarily attested via the European Union Migrant Artists Network (EU-MAN) and its magazine Universal Colours. Each is currently redlinked -- in itself, this isn't damning, but they're so obscure that Google doesn't even find them mentioned in en.wikipedia.org (aside from this one article). Let's take a look at the issue of Universal Colours whose PDF is linked in a reference. Near the front of this, there's something oddly titled "The obligation", which seems to be some sort of statement of intent. Here's how it starts: "This is our 18th years of work; meaning we are adults now, meaning we can decide by ourselves, meaning we can be independent and can move from our father and mother dominance. It means and means and means and so on." This doesn't look at all promising. So I disagree with Exemplo347 (above): don't start again from scratch; instead, just remove. -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article claims exhibitions in museums and public galleries around the world, for which I didn't find any references. The Universal Colours I found with article about her is a promotional publication, which prints articles about artists who pay them to be printed, which excludes it from the list of independent sources. So, unless someone provides verifiable links to here exhibitions, the article clearly can't stay and it's not salvageable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus here is that while the subject appears to be notable, the current article suffers from poor writing and an overly-promotional tone. So, we're going to keep this, but somebody needs to do some major editing (i.e. stubify or WP:TNT). I will leave the implementation of that up to somebody else. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natias Neutert

[edit]
Natias Neutert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The current article "Natias Neutert" does not meet the notability criterias for both authors and actors, or any other circumstance. We shouldn't promote this by having an article in our project: It's an article self-advertising a self-advertiser. Plus, the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia sister project - Neutert is a German citizen - has been deleted twice (just a month ago for the last time) because of his proven encyplopedic irrelevance. I suggest to trust our colleagues and delete the article also here. Richpovertist (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T/C) 12:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/14._März_2017#Natias_Neutert_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29, the deleting admin believes the person is notable enough for a short article, but they decided the article was hopeless, so WP:TNT was the only way to be sure. I do also believe Neutert is notable enough, but would recommend stubbing and starting over. —Kusma (t·c) 21:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear admin Kusma, You are a German living here in the UK. That's helpful since you understand both English and German. But the question if Neutert is notable enough to have an article here is not a question of belief but rather of facts, isn't it? He has published only one book and has never had a major role on screen which doesn't make him an author or a film star. At least according to Google, there is no media coverage in this century on Mr Neutert. I just don't see which criteria this person meets according to our regulations which I have linked above for any interested third party. Starting over respectively TNT would end up in getting the same messy current article which is (and will certainly be again) overloaded with pictures that have nothing to do at all with Neutert (like the Karl Marx stamp) and numerous tiny bits of unimportant pieces of information ... From my point of view, this man is just a minor artist who misuses this project for showmanship. This, however, is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm afraid, this leads to the deletion of the article in question. Otherwise, naming the facts that make him notable should be mentioned here. Cheers --Richpovertist (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He is an artist/author/activist who was most active in the 1960s to 1980s. According to Google, there are lots of mentions in books in the last century (but he seems less active now). Yes, he is a self promoter, but that is not in itself a reason not to have an article about him. You say we should not have an article about him, but the German Wikipedia discussion ended in the decision to allow an article about him, just not the one they had (which was probably very similar to the one we have at the moment). I am willing to buy the argument that we can find only thousands of minor mentions that do not give us enough to write a properly sourced biography without WP:OR, but I object to characterising this state of affairs as "proven encyplopedic irrelevance". —Kusma (t·c) 05:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to read the discussion in our German sister project although my German is a bit rusty (ehem), so I might got things wrong but wasn't one of the major aspects mentioned there that they questioned the sources and pointed out that some assertions like attending Leipzig university in East Germany in the end of the 1960s simply couldn't be true a.k.a. were lies? Talking about the awards, all three were no awards as one of the other users pointed out in their statement. And the "picture issue" (buildings and things that were in the article to make it look more important) was obviously the same in the German article. Once again: If we TNT the current article, someone else will come up with exactly the same using shady sources. And please, don't try to elude. Neutert is a self promoter, and according to your statement this is no objection for having an article. Could you tell me exactly how this goes along with WP:BIO? The section for entertainers reads: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (no); "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." (no); "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (no). Additionally, the points mentioned for creative professionals do not apply to Neutert either. The statement of the German colleagues can be seen as helpful clues for us but we should also have an independent discussion, following our own rules. I'm very sorry to object you but we usually do not grant self promoters an article here. Why should we do it in Neutert's case? From my point of view, he does not match any of our criterias.—It were a plus though to hear a third and fourth opinion on that. Cheers, --Richpovertist (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it curious that you are so certain what "we usually do" when your account is just a few days old. The problem with Neutert and WP:BIO is that he is a bit of a jack of many trades, and is borderline notable as a journalist, borderline notable as a poet, borderline notable as a performer, while not clearly passing any of the standards of WP:BIO (the most appropriate one is WP:ARTIST's "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"). Your objection against turning this into a decent stub seems to be "people will edit it again" which isn't a problem, as they can be reverted again. The greater problem from my point of view seems to be that it is difficult to write a decent stub, and maybe we shouldn't have an article without better secondary sources (basically, that is how I understand why we have the WP:GNG). I would also welcome a broader discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 21:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I researched Natias Neutert and, based on my findings, he appears notable. He has more than 500 hits on his name through Google Books, and the citations in the article back up this notability. All that said, the article needs to be rewritten b/c the language is very rough and doesn't flow well. But that's not a concern which would cause the article to be deleted.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:18, 3 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. SpinningSpark 13:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memoria viva de la transición

[edit]
Memoria viva de la transición (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any of the five criteria for book notability. Mathglot (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely as a memoir by a clearly notable man, merging would be more sensible? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps. As a standalone article, I don't see it. The book is a sequel to memoirs by ex-P.M. Calvo-Sotelo about Spain's transition to democracy, a clearly notable topic, but as mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papers from an unemployed person books don't inherit notability from the notability of their chosen subject area. On the other hand, I think it's likely that a new sub-section in the article about the author would be warranted, with consideration for due weight. Mathglot (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the "drive-by comment" at Afd/Papers from an unemployed person, since reviews are included in notability and this book clearly has reviews, I see no point in continuing this. Nomination withdrawn. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- The political memoirs of a Prime Minister (Presidente) are likely to be notable, but this is a horrid article. There appears to be another volume of memoirs. Could we combine them into one article? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Harrias talk 10:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Inter-Provincial Championship

[edit]
2016 Inter-Provincial Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASON as 2017 were the only first-class, list A and Twenty20 cricket tournaments. Should we delete or merge these articles? Greenbörg (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

2013 Inter-Provincial Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Inter-Provincial Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 Inter-Provincial Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 Inter-Provincial Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Inter-Provincial Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 Inter-Provincial Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 Inter-Provincial Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Inter-Provincial Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greenbörg (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The notability guideline cited in the deletion rationale, WP:NSEASON, refers to a team's season within a competition, for example Northern Knights in the 2016 Inter-Provincial Championship. Jevansen (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong. But it still fails WP:CRIN. Greenbörg (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: I have read WP:CRIN and they pass them clearly. I will go with keep as well. Greenbörg (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You can withdraw the AfD as you're the nominator, so it can be closed. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:29, 4 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. SpinningSpark 13:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NDMVP College of Engineering

[edit]
NDMVP College of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable college which has not been covered in significant detail by reliable sources Amisom (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - it is a college of Savitribai Phule Pune University. It seems that any recognized college that awards masters degrees is notable, but it could be comfortably merged as an affiliate of the more notable university. The full name is "Nashik District Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj Maratha Vidya prasarak Samaj's Karmaveer Baburao Ganpatrao Thakare College of Engineering." Is there a list somewhere for hilariously long college names? Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Affiliated colleges are separate institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 3 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. SpinningSpark 13:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie White

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Natalie White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As WP:BIO1E. Won Survivor in 2009, and has had no public presence afterwards. Currently, all Survivor winners have pages; there is a case that receiving 1 million dollars for starring on a 16-episode TV series meets WP:ENT.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. This appears to be a good example of the risks involved in reaching a consensus that a particular class of articles are inherently notable. Such shorthand policy formulations are generally based on the argument that "anything/ anyone of this type must have been discussed in reliable independent sources that demonstrate notability". In this case the answer is clearly not.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:34, 4 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 Jimmy Cavallo. Consensus to redirect. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSD Records

[edit]
BSD Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a defunct record label has no references. A search finds only incidental references in occasional Billboard lists, with no substantive content to establish anything about the label other than the fact it, at one time, existed. Chetsford (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: Chetsford did not suggest to redirect it, so "redirect per Chetsford" isn't helpful. Since multiple redirect options have been presented, you should clarify where you'd like to see it redirected. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix: Thank you. Redirect to Jimmy Cavallo as per 78.26 and your suggestion below. -- HighKing++ 15:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch, this one is killing me! 1950s record label! I've done my best to find sources, and from what I've gathered the label issued some extremely obscure but historically important pre-rock music. This is discussed in some detail by knowledgeable collectors on message boards and blogs, which unfortunately don't help with WP:V. I imagine there are some pre-internet record-collecting magazines or rock-music history publications that deal with it, but I've not located them. So with great sadness I have to recommend redirect, but not to List of Record Labels, because only labels with articles are kept there, so such a listing would be removed. Instead, it makes the most sense to redirect to Jimmy Cavallo as it is this artist for whose releases this label has become sought-after by collectors, and which generates the internet chatter. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jimmy Cavallo per 78.26. It seems the label is discussed more there than the article itself, so that's an amicable way to deal with the situation. FWIW, I would oppose a redirect to List of record labels: A-H. The list of record labels are only for notable labels, and if it's decided here that this label isn't notable, then it should be removed from that list. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought that after listing, but the inclusion criteria wasn't forthcoming (there's a redirect to "notable" but that's not obviously the end of it). I'd still prefer to redirect with sources than a whole article. Widefox; talk 02:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: It's better to redirect somewhere our readers can get some information on a subject than somewhere they'd get zero information. -- Tavix (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hobsons choice - a badly sourced BLP or possibly failing list inclusion criteria. Either way, a redirect is right, and retains content. Widefox; talk 04:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shuping Yang commencement speech controversy

[edit]
Shuping Yang commencement speech controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. This is simply a commencement speech in the US that was criticized by Chinese state media. No sustained coverage or significance. feminist 12:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, this is merely a translation of the article ,moreover, the event has caused thorough discussion among the world over the issue of the extended censorship. Deletion of this article will serious lyrics weakening the international effort of standing against the dictatorship in China User:真相永不落
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist 12:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. feminist 12:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Yes, it was widely reported at the time but WP is not a news organisation charged with recording every headline and news item. A few months from now this will be forgotten, and as such it has no long-term notability, either as an event or an individual.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see the point of deleting it, for the reason it's not notable for an encyclopedia. The larger point seems to be the influence of the CSSA imposing Chinese state-run air quality "standards" and general authoritarian influence into the American discourse. A commencement speech at an American university is not the place to smog facts, comparing only Chinese cities and ignore higher standards outside China, only for the sake of avoiding ruffling princeling feathers. DavidBoudreau (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fueled by Global Times and CSSA, this speech has caused widespread controversy in China. --DukeAnt (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This event has extremely high notability in China, reported as "Shuping Yang Humiliation-of-China Speech" (杨舒平辱华演讲) in most Chinese media, but I wonder what the notability is in the whole world. In my opinion, it is just simply showing the over nationalism, xenophobia and siege mentality among the Chinese mob. Some popular Chinese proverbs such as 家丑不可外扬 (domestic scandals should not be known by others) just simply shows Chinese-style xenophobia. Some popular Chinese proverbs such as 狗不嫌家贫，子不嫌母丑 (dog never despises the poverty of its master, and son never despises the ugliness of his mother) only shows the Chinese-style slavery-deserving mentality. --Yejianfei (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 8 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 per sourcing found and offered. Can benefit from more work, yes... but needing work is not a deletion rationale.

Horn 'Ok' Pleassss

[edit]
Horn 'Ok' Pleassss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the article there is no single source to claim whether this film existed/released or not. Secondly it does not also passes WP:NFF. Nominated for deletion for good. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 15:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Horn

[edit]
Bill Horn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was considering tagging it for Speedy Deletion but then I figured bringing it here would be better. I fail to see how mr. Horn is meeting the notability criteria. His list of medals is impressive but unsourced and his current work doesn't make him notable. Also, I can't find much about him apart from blurbs on promotional/personal websites. Yintan  07:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 3 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Cohn

[edit]
Jesse Cohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American academic without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent (third-party) sources. (?) As for the scholar notability guideline, he is an associate (not full) prof, and has fairly low Google Scholar citations. Biggest book is "Anarchism and the crisis of representation", held in 183 libraries, but even that doesn't appear to have been reviewed widely enough to be independently notable. No other potential redirect targets. czar 07:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 07:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 07:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 07:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. czar 07:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem without a title

[edit]
Anthem without a title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The untitled anthem of a sub-national entity (the Netherlands Antilles; a division of the Netherlands) that no longer exists. The only reference is to a site on national anthems, and I don't feel it establishes the notability of a particular anthem. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was never an independent nation, so your reasoning doesn't really apply. Would every official song of every sub-national entity in the world be automatically notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 06:40, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Maddren

[edit]
Tim Maddren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Independent, secondary, reliable sources are not talking about this person in any depth. He has not won any awards or created any major works. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 06:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top Engineering colleges in Madhya Pradesh

[edit]
Top Engineering colleges in Madhya Pradesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not list of top or best services. List be converted to colleges in Madhya Pradesh and ranking be added Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure on what basis we can add thr ranking either. Number of students? Price of assets? Aggregate result of students? Job placement?
List of colleges is okay, they should be sorted either area-wise, or alphabetically. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of primary schools in Mauritius

[edit]
List of primary schools in Mauritius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTDIR. I probably could've speedied this one, but I don't see any criteria it meets. XboxGamer22408talk to me 04:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puck App

[edit]
Puck App (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No discussion of the subject in reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quite aside from that is the issue -- the nom's words are unambiguous -- what does any of that matter? We're not talking about "inherent" notability, this is a GNG pass, pure and simple, and notability on Wikipedia fundamentally flows from whether or not a subject's discussed at length in reliable sources, period. Whether this is more or less "notable" than other such apps, whether there's a similarly named app, or how widely this is used, all those are WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT arguments that form no part of deletion policy. Heck, if the app never existed at all, that wouldn't be a bar. Category:Vaporware Ravenswing 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: from my recent contributions/experience I've got one question: why can't wikipedia editors summarise all the guidelines and then follow the summary instead of doing that, they seem to follow every policy to the letter. They are called "guidelines" for a reason. They are not golden rules. We are humans, with logic. —usernamekiran(talk)(log) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Indeed we are, and before we should ditch a clear notability guideline, we need a really good reason to do so. No case has been made that this article is so injurious to Wikipedia that we need to ignore the fundamental guideline used to assess the notability of subjects to do so, or that you seemingly ignoring WP:BEFORE was called for. Ravenswing 17:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: nope. I did proper work before nominating it for deletion. So we should be WP:LAWYER unless the article is eligible for speedy? —usernamekiran(talk)(log) 19:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you claim that there's no discussion of the subject in reliable sources, you didn't. Either you didn't bother looking at the sources, or you didn't bother with verifying that they're reliable. Ravenswing 20:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to make false claims. I did it adequately, and did not find anything. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original creation of the article clearly has reliable sources where the 'puck app' is the subject of the article. Inline citations, easy to access stories on a small page. I assume I am missing some other criteria for deletion, lack of reliable sources does not make sense.18abruce (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see a basis for deletion. Apps may not be inherently notable, but this one passes GNG based on significant coverage in reliable sources (which are already cited in the article). And while GNG is a guideline that doesn't always need to be followed, no one has presented a good reason for not following it here nor am I aware of one (and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason). Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - every reference is a primary source, contemporaneous with news coverage of its launch. There is no secondary coverage of this app, meaning that it will fail WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:19, 11 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 redirected by author. Now points to List of data breaches. (non-admin closure) ansh666 20:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grozio Chirurgija breach

[edit]
Grozio Chirurgija breach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a news story that received coverage internationally, but Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS. In the scheme of things, it is a minor IT security breach. PROD by user:Reddogsix declined by the original author. Renata (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Renata3:, thanks for notifying me :) user:Reddogsix cited WP:NOTNEWS as the basis for deletion. I think it is debatable whether the criteria there apply to this article, but to avoid a lengthy discussion, I have instead condensed the article into two short entries: one at Timeline of computer security hacker history#2017, and one at List of data breaches. I have redirected the original article to the latter article. Please WP:PING me if you think it needs further discussion. Thanks :) zazpot (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When persons convicted of murder can be sentenced to probation in the United States (with one notable exception)

[edit]
When persons convicted of murder can be sentenced to probation in the United States (with one notable exception) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN, WP:GNG, unsourced, ridiculous unsearchable title. ansh666 01:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:35, 3 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. SpinningSpark 13:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of a police dog laws in the United States

[edit]
Killing of a police dog laws in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG/WP:LISTN, unsourced. ansh666 01:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 8 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Legal Facts About All 50 States, the military, the federal government, and the District of Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list of trivia, failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG. ansh666 01:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SantiLak (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Logasa

[edit]
Hannah Logasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. SantiLak (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I may not have the time to expand the page and sourcing until Monday (but I'll do it then, if no one else does first), but Logasa was a famous librarian, bibliographer, teacher, curriculum developer, and civic leader and there are plenty of sources discussing her and her work in google books, google scholar, google, newspapers.com, etc. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:35, 3 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaji abubakar dakingari gusau

[edit]
Alhaji abubakar dakingari gusau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and incomprehensible. Because the English is so garbled, hard to say whether it makes a credible claim for significance, but doesn't establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. My reading of the article has him as a sort of state-level politician in Nigeria, but quite possibly not an office-holder. A Google search doesn't give an awful lot of hope, as there appear to have been similar figures with similar names. Assuming none of these are this gentleman known by a nickname/shortened name, then my delete opinion is stronger. The fact that it's unreferenced is an issue as well, although it's possible that this will be a sort of "pre-internet" subject, given the era and location. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_June_3&oldid=1142618277"