Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 June	6 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zunera

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

she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. she was the winner of non-notable "Mrs. Pakistan International USA". most of the cited sources are unreliable. Saqib (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the pageant may not have its own page, but it looks like it passes GNG or comes close [1]. That aside, there is also sufficient coverage of Zunera alone: [2], [3], [4], ~~[5]~~. I know articles focused on fashion and beauty pageants are often looked down on (subtle sexism, in my opinion), but if the publications are sound, the articles are still considered significant and reliable GNG-friendly sources. Yvarta (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some quick Googling shows there is no such thing as the "Mrs. Pakistan International USA pageant", and that's a problem. --Lockley (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [6] suggests that she did enter such a pageant; but it's clearly not sufficient for notability. I have absolutely no idea what the case for the mononym would be. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the original editor's request, I have been helping them to make improvements to the article, but not being knowledgeable about Mrs Mazher, my additions are extremely limited. I think there is notability there, but whether or not it is sufficient to make the notability requirements is too close for me to call. The earlier (less neutrally worded article) that was nominated for speedy deletion showed more notability, but unfortunately did not include references for those potentially more notable bits. If references for those parts that were removed could be found, added to the current article along with better phrasing, then maybe the article will definitely demonstrate notability. What I would suggest is that if the article is deleted, it be userfied for Thecapital15's benefit. If it is kept, I would recommend a page rename to Zunera Mazher. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick Google Search yields quite significant results. Definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. The article itself is adequately referenced and I can see popular medica coverage in her home country and the US. Featured in top media outlets like CNN and the Express Tribune. The nominator should have a look over the references and their quality before nomination for deletion. Bellayelps (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Bellayelps (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am responding to every single user who left their response. Please don't consider this disruption, all the concerns you have raised are addressed one by one below.WP:GF

Hi @MBisanz:,

Thanks for your input! I didn't know the procedure, I was under the impression that a person like you will be the final authority & will be the ultimate decider but to my surprise, even you didn't take a decision after seeing that there is no apparent consensus :)

I don't know how we're going to reach a consensus, I guess we can begin by addressing the concerns raised by some other honorable members. I have responded to some members on their respective talk sections & tried to advocate my case to why the discrepancy was there in the first place. The core reason was only my ignorance for which I constantly sought their guidance but very few were kind enough to lend their wisdom. I rendered some member's help in rectifying some shortcomings, but I guess they are busy, I had to spend hours googling & incorporated those changes myself & some other members were very kind enough to help with the edits.

As for @Saqib:'s objection, "most of the cited sources are unreliable" - Currently the article has citations from CNN ABC Express Tribune & Pakistan Today - these are mainstream media publication of two different countries(U.S & Pakistan). Some of these were missing in the beginning but now they are incorporated. So Saqib bhai kindly review the page WP:EDITCONSENSUS & let us know what you think.In its current state it clearly passes WP:RELIABLE

@Lockley: said there is no such thing as "Mrs. Pakistan International USA pageant" - the name of the title was entered incorrectly in the first draft which is rectified after indicationWP:EDITCONSENSUS. Now it is changed to "Mrs. Pakistan International" - Mrs. International a pageant which is around for more than 30 years ^[1].

According to @Power~enwiki: - a mononym 'Zunera' was used as the page name, again due to my ignorance I didn't use the correct format. An issue which is currently fixed and now the page loads as Zunera_Mazhar WP:EDITCONSENSUS

Sir @Stephen: in the above comment your only concern was addressed WP:EDITCONSENSUS, I was going to do this right away but I didn't know how. I am thankful to @Bellayelps: who incorporated some important changes.

I am requesting all the honorable members of this discussion who raised their concerns, to please review the changes made in light of their objections WP:EDITCONSENSUS and please help expedite this matter. There are references of at least 5 published sources WP:NEWSORG which quashes all the WP:GNG objections as there are multiple reliable sources WP:RELIABLE quoted & in presence of these sources notability exist WP:NEXIST.Clearly there is no dearth of notability & at the time of publishing this page I wasn't aware of the importance of citing reliable sources. The nominator being a senior editor should've fixed this mistake by a rookie & instead of nominating this page for deletion WP:NEWBIES should've cited reliable sources which are easily accessible on the first page of google ^[2] but now that we have rectified most of the issues, I hope we will reach to some meaningful conclusion soon. Thecapital15 (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apparently we have too many SPA's here. likely sockpuppets. --Saqib (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that this article was the subject of a recent job ad on Upwork hiring multiple editors to vote in this AfD. - Bilby (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby:, could you link this Upwork ad or let us know the posting time? If there is a sockpuppet infestation, I don't want to be mistakenly associated. Yvarta (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the first job ad related to this AfD was placed well after you had !voted here. There is absolutely no reason to assume that there is any relationship between the two. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: Yes please post links as to where you saw this & how is it associated to this page? I hope the discussion won't be derailed with dubious job posts, as the initial objections questioned the merits of notability which have been addressed over time.Thecapital15 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to have been three ads placed for this article. The first was placed around May 24 and was not related to this AfD - it was only to assist with formatting and editing, and no one was hired. The second was titled "Add Image to Wikipedia Article & Vote Keep in Deletion Discussion" and was placed on June 2. Two editors were hired and have since been paid, the jobs marked as completed, and they have been given positive feedback. The wording related to the AfD was "The page is also nominated for deletion because of notability, there is currently one keep vote because it is about a notable personality but some schmuck thought it isn't. I will need you to be able to vote Keep. Once you see the page you will know it does deserve to stay there." The third job ad was posted yesterday, and is titled "Wikipedia Vote Keep or Comment in Deletion Discussion" with the wording "The initial draft wasn't that impressive I guess, hence it got flagged. Over the week I have made significant changes but the stick in the mud kind of people at Wikipedia won't back off now. So I need a couple of Wikipedian's with 1000+ edits on their accounts to vote keep & throw some major shade". No one has been hired for the third job ad. - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My response is for any new users who want to take part in the discussion and the administrator. I can clearly see where this discussion will steer if I partake in the slander. A simple Upwork search ^[3] alone will show over 25+ jobs posted in the last 3 hours with over 8 jobs having AfD related requests. Are those job posts also related to this page? Casting unascertainable aspersions & slander is disruptive behavior & clearly in violation of good faith guideline. Apparently, sockpuppet is the Nuclear word in this community as it has clearly spooked Yvarta. This new development has completely jeopardized the possibility of any new user leaving any comment that advocates the case of this page's notability & reliability of its sources. I hope the administrator will take a decision after weighing the merits of notability & reliability. Because that's why this page was nominated in the first place. In my comment above with reliable sources & citing guidelines, I have explained in great detail how this page has reliability & notability.Thecapital15 (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there are a number of current jobs on Upwork related to Wikipedia editing. However, as far as I am aware only those three relate to this AfD. The others presumably are for different articles. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the reliability & notability of this page is ascertained in great detail in my comment above with reliable sources & guidelines citations. Any other unascertainable aspersions are nothing but slander. Please don't consider my civility & respect a sign of weakness. I am just waiting for an objective administrator to take note of this very unbecoming & disruptive behavior.Thecapital15 (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and paid editing is certainly a problem. But yes, the closing admin will, I'm sure, be able to take this into account. I don't think we need to worry about acting on it at this time. - Bilby (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rather Burn it Down. I'm not a paid editor and I did not come here from a job board. The subject does not pass WP:NMODEL which is the relevent criteria. Only the subject would hire people to vote on an AfD to protect her vanity article, so how about we WP:SALT so it can't be recreated by this person and her paid minions. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Agree totally. I now think salting is appropriate. Just to repeat the point above -- the dates and details of that second Upwork task match up to the !votes here and improvements made by WikiTimPedia and Bellayelps. (And hey I match the description of "some schmuck".) Whatever else is going on, this is pushy-pushy promotional activity with editors encouraged to "throw some major shade" to get this done. --Lockley (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are plenty of WP:RELIABLE WP:PRIMARY & WP:SECONDARY sources quoted on the page & most are mainstream WP:NEWSORG of not one but two different countries(U.S & Pakistan). According to this guideline -> WP:NEXIST the notability clearly exists as there are numerous WP:RELIABLE sources quoted. I am sure the administrators will take note of the crass language used in guise of unsubstantiated, unascertainable, mala fide & ridiculous claims. I will again exercise restraint & not invoke WP:HARASS but when my Talk page is littered with phony claims of Sock Puppetry which is a clear naked blatant violation of WP:HUSH I can't assume WP:GOODFAITH. I am glad that an investigation is requested to substantiate the sock puppetry claims & I can't wait for the results. Hope the discussion will be kept limited to merits of notability & reliability, now that the investigation re puppetry is ongoing.Thecapital15 (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I requested an SPI [7] based on the strange goings on here. Thecapital15 is claiming I'm harrassing them for informing them of the SPI and demanding I delete the SPI notice within three minutes.[8] Of course they are free to delete such notices themselves from their own talkpage. I'm not impressed with all the policy linking and claims of harrassment here and on their talk. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew I could remove your comments or notifications, I would remove them right away according to these guidelines WP:HUSH By the way I asked you very politely, as I was under the impression that I am not allowed to remove other peoples' comments & I had to give you 3 mins ultimatum because I asked 3 times before that citing these guidelines WP:HUSH which you refused to acknowledge. Just wanted to set the record straight as guidelines citations were not mentioned & I haven't yet cited WP:HARASS & i'm sure I won't because we're all professional people here. AND thank you very much for starting the investigation you did me a solid, as I had no way to refute the claims made re sockpuppets, it was my word against others & clearly I am at a disadvantage.Thecapital15 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Sources do not seem reliable. Kazmi (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC+2)
Delete. Shenanigans such as sock puppetry point always leads me to believe the notability is in question. Ifnord (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note the "contributions" of a confirmed sock puppet were removed from this AfD already. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at all the citations. IMO none is WP:INDEPENDENT. A search turned up nothing better (although it did, perhaps unsurprisingly, turn up the usual pile of social sites). Fails WP:BIO, and I'll throw in WP:PROMO for good measure. Narky Blert (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017 Melbourne attack

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

Every police incident is not notable and is WP:NOTNEWS.
Creator (who is new) has dubious additions too [9] Lihaas (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Lihaas (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Islamic Terrorism is still quite rare in Australia and the police shooting someone dead after an attack like this is definitely a notable event Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source considering it so. (or at least one the page)
Further new/old doesnt constitute notability and that is POV/CRYSTALBALL/SYNTHESIS.Lihaas (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its clearly notable as its getting a lot media coverage in Australia. although the investigators are open-minded about whether terrorism was the trigger for the shootout, it appears that it is based on the evidence now that it is a terrorist attack. The police have stated that they are treating the siege as a terrorist incident and attack. The guy that did it is known to counter terrorist although they have also stated BernardZ (talk)
Wait, too difficult to make a determination on lower-profile events like this one this early. ansh 666 02:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Holsworthy Barracks terror plot is notable, this is one of the 2009 terrorists.-- Callinus (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Terrorist incident or not, kidnappings and gun related crime is comparatively rare in Australia. The incident also has a fair deal of coverage so far. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 per WP:NOTNEWS. The only arguments I see above are opinions and a reference to article x. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information and references in this article are relevant to existing articles such as Holsworthy Barracks terror plot. If the outcome of this discussion is delete, I'd ask the information be merged before doing so. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering there are 5 casualties, along with significant international media reporting on the attack, Islamic State has even claimed responsibility for it. So clearly an important event.--Luckyowl10 (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. May have terrorism link, too soon to delete at present. WWGB (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable because it relates to a serious policy discussion about bail laws and how those with very long, consistent histories of crime and terrorism links, are frequently released on bail. Rumours of 40 priors (TBC). This is a very active topic of discussion in Australia. It does great harm to efforts to build a tolerant, multicultural society, if reasonable controls against known criminals aren't enforced. Deletion of this would contribute to censorship of that discussion, risks being seen as politically opinionated suppression and is not in Wikipedia's interests. (I would note that suppression of *reasonable* social discussion, is also giving rise to vigilantism and propensity for the hardening of right-wing votes against 'alt-left' suppression of such issues). 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This terrorist incident was big in Australia. It may be "insignificant" to world's standards, but it's a big deal in this country. Australia doesn't get terrorist attacks everyday anyway - We had three such incidents in the last two years (including this one), and the casualties were not above 2. Whether they had 2 deaths or 200, this is still a terrorist attack, and it should be noted, especially being in Australia. Meganesia (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Meganesia (talk · contribs)'s and @Callinus:'s comments. (58.164.100.14 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep along the same reasoning as other keep votes -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:44, 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. Problems with the layout can be addressed by editing. So Why 08:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cour

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

Disambiguation page. Contains only WP:PTM entries, not genuine disambiguation entries. There's nothing to disambiguate. Sandstein 20:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You need the soft redirect to wiktionary and the links to Cours, La Cour and De La Cour anyway. Add Ajit Cour, Glenys Cour, Pierre Cour. Don't delete disambiguations without checking whether good entries for it exist please. Fram (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't list random people with the same last name in a dab page either, only if they are well-known by their last name alone. I doubt that this applies to these three relatively obscure artists. Sandstein 21:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: It's actually a fairly common practice to list people with the same last name in a disambiguation, see Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists for some examples. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um I think Wikipedia does actually list random people by their last name, it also redirects unique last names to random people. Not sure if that's a good idea... who does that hmm Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a surname page, with three entries and a See also section for La Cour and De la Cour. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and on balance as a dab page rather than converting to surname page - quite OK for a dab page to have section on nameholders, and I've just added it using info provided by Fram. PTMs... seem pretty harmless; "See Also" section essential as navigation to related dab page and names. Why fret about trying to delete a useful page like this when there is so much rubbish in the encyclopedia? PamD 08:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be getting in the way of search engine results so there might be a good reason to delete it... not sure.
Keep, whether it should remain a dab or contain a list of all "cour" it can be discussed elsewhere. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:PTM guideline specifically states "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to surname page The first set of entries are all WP:PTM and an {intitle} link in see also would cover them. Adding these is against guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to surname page as it's been determined to be the only valid uses of "Cour". -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DAB page. I've just added a geo tag and five places in English Wiki whose name begins with "Cour" (which is how they're likely to be known locally)~~, plus a see-also~~ (oops, that SA was a duplicate, now deleted). There are also a couple more places with that name in French Wiki. Five places + three people = DAB page AFAIC. "Cour" is a likely search term. Just shift all the PTMs down into see-also where they belong. Narky Blert (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One might see a "keep" here is well, since Collect's is the only "delete" rationale that presents an argument--"no sources" doesn't work so well anymore after sourced are added. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghar Ka Chiraag (1967 film)

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no sources (beyond external link to Imdb) where I found this film with a slightly different spelling: [10] which is mentioned in this book: [11]. Still nothing that will satisfy WP:NFILM. Gab4gab (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Endercase (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering that it's a 1967 Indian film the content and sourcing is sufficient.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's one of only three children's films made in 1967, and has a star cast of prominent Indian actors. Kaayay (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do agree that it has enough sourcing now, but I can't withdraw it per the one delete vote (I'm discounting the one that didn't have a rationale). Although I will say that creating an article with only an IMDb as a reference is unhelpful and would stop such nominations and work from happening if not done. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now significantly expanded with other references. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - and being one of "three children's films" is not a "notability claim" per se. Basically, the issue is whether a film with several blue-linked BLPs is thus notable by virtue of those blue-links. Being in a comprehensive list of "world filmography" intrinsically includes non-notable films, as far as I can tell. A list of "Indian Films of 1967" also only provides a claim that the film exists, and is not a notability claim as such - more on the level of an en passant mention in a comprehensive list in the first place. The "madanmohan.in" site is SPS. "Update Video Publication"[12] appears not to be a notable publisher at all, and appears either to be SPS or Vanity Press as far as I can tell in this case. "Hindigeetmsla" is a source for lyrics for every possible Hindi song it can find (over 73,000 songs at least) - and is not a source for notability of a song nor of a film using a song. Thus, excluding "lists of everything" and SPS sites there are no sources directly bearing on this film at all which means it fails all notability guidelines, alas. Collect (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good to see more sources added. They are helpful to verify some of the article content. However they don't do much to establish notability and I continue to favor delete. Having a notable cast or being an Indian film are not notability criteria. The sources found to date fit the examples of coverage that is insufficient at the bottom of WP:NFSOURCES. I agree with the analysis above by Collect. Gab4gab (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ssven2. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would lead to a better consensus discussion if editors would point to specific sources that satisfy specific notability criteria. Simply arguing WP:LOTSOFSOURCES without addressing the specifics of opposing points of view isn't a helpful a dialog. Gab4gab (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:59, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fighting Talk episodes

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

Not only has this article taken up too much space, it doesn't seem to have any real purpose. JB82 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete pure fancruft and trivia, no reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia and fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long running and very popular show on one of Britain's most popular sport stations Sam11333 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is trivia. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:57, 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. So Why 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Ericson

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

Non-notable failed politician whose claim to fame is being mentioned as a colorful candidate that appeared in a C-SPAN broadcast debate. Lacks in-depth, non-trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colorful perennial candidate who campaigned for cannabis (marijuana) before it became ok to talk about in public. Notable for running as a marijuana candidate in every election cycle for almost two decades. Nationally noted by stories in Newsweek and Time magazines. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure how running for office and always losing meets Wikipedia notability criteria - it certainly does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. The Time and Newsweek mentions are very trivial (both are single line mentions) and lack in-depth reporting. reddogsix (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[1] AND, on top of that, being notably colorful. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where being "colorful" is a criteria for Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[2] In Newsweek a paragraph is significant, and sharing the subject of the article's title in Time is significant. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are far from non-trivial, significant discussions of the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a person who is famous for losing. And, according to a 2016 poll, more than one out of every eight Vermonters know who she is. And yes, of course it is possible to become notorious for being colorful. Wikipedia notability requirements are met, unquestionably, by the article. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but popularity has nothing to do with Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment The criteria for notability of a person are found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Key among these is, having "received significant coverage [my emphasis] in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A Google News search of the subject revealed that most entries mentioned the subject only in her replying in a comment to an article. Only the following mentioned her directly, but incidentally:

Nicks, Denver (October 15, 2014). "America Needs More Crazy Debates Like In Vermont". Time.
Cadei, Emily (August 28, 2015). "The Debate About Presidential Debates". Newsweek.
Johnson, Mark (July 27, 2016). "Poll: Scott still best-known, but Minter as well-liked". Vermont Digger.

An incidental mention in three articles does not meet the significant coverage criterion for notability. User:HopsonRoad 00:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently 16 good, reliable sources cited in the article. And at least a dozen of the pieces are significant, so that merits notability for the subject. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, these are far from non-trivial, significant discussions of the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And again I will repeat yes, in fact several of the citations are non-trivial, significant discussions. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BASIC states that, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7]" Footnote [7] speaks to what's trivial. I thank The Hammer of Thor for bringing forward more sources than were visible at the top of my Google search. I find these to be germane to this discussion:

Walker, Hunter (October 14, 2014). "Vermont's Gubernatorial Debate Was Very, Very Special". Business Insider.
"Funny On Fox Nation: Vermont Governor Debate The Kookiest Loons Ever On Stage". Fox Nation. October 22, 2014.
Fuller, Jaime (August 26, 2014). "Where can you run for two offices at once? Vermont, of course". The Washington Post.
Heintz, Paul (October 28, 2016). "At Vermont PBS Debate, Leahy Pans Milne Term Limit Proposal". Seven Days.

These seem to satisfy the definition of non-triviality at WP:BASIC (Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.) Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 23:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am satisfied that seven multiple independent sources in two separate election cycles demonstrate notability, lacking in-depth coverage in any one of them. User:HopsonRoad 13:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional mentions include: "The caucus: Vermont". The New York Times. September 12, 2006. A short mention but not irrelevant, in my view. DES ^(talk)
Delete a perennial candidate. Every reference I've checked (including all 7 listed by User:HopsonRoad in this discussion) notes that she is a candidate, but don't discuss her candidacy or her in particular. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Elaborating why I think the subject meets Wikipedia notability requirements at WP:N and WP:BIO:

An autobiographical article was started in 2007 and was deleted. However, had someone located citations, I think the subject would have met notability requirements at that time. She had already gotten national attention in 2004 as the subject of an article in CollegeHumor and she had been mentioned in the NYT in 2006.
The subject is notable for three things, (1) being a cannabis activist, putting "marijuana' onto the Vermont ballot next to her name, long before Colorado and other states voted for legalization. See CollegeHumor citation above; (2) being remarkably colorful, documented in numerous sources from election cycles in 2012, 2014, and 2016. See list of references; and (3) being a famous failure. See Heady Vermont below.
She is well-known for losing. According to a 2016 poll in Vermont Digger, more than one out of every eight Vermonters know who she is. As a matter of fact, in Vermont, the subject's name is synonymous with "losing-est." (See the use of subject's name in Heady Vermont.)

The references cited in the article are non-trivial. The subject meets all requirements at WP:BASIC. Keep. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NYT source is in-depth coverage. Among the "others running", her positions are the only ones that are mentioned. Also, she has run multiple times over the years and received coverage the different times she ran. New York Times, Time (magazine), Fox News, Business Insider are all reliable sources. Coverage of her "style" does not render such coverage "trivial". Per HopsonRoad, WP's "trivial" does not mean "lighthearted", it means something closer to "nonessential". Clearly the coverage of her style is non-trivial to the sources cited. Am I wrong? Show me how and I'll gladly change my vote.:-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources included in article satisfy inclusion criteria. MartinJones (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HopsonRoad's fine re-analysis of The Hammer of Thor's sources, also noting that several of the delete statements about perennial candidacies reduce to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Bri (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the case for deletion is that she (very definitely) doesn't meet NPOL, and there's no claim of notability for her other than through WP:MILL election-related coverage. I note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Creswell as a similar case recently closed as deleted. No amount of election-related coverage will make a perennial candidate notable, they must have some coverage other than as a politician to meet GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's interesting that you mention WP:MILL, because that's en excellent illustration of why the subject meets WP:GNG: She's definitely not run-of-the-mill; she's exceptionally bad. (Please see my comments above.) -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, despite the initial closure as a Delete, Gregory Creswell became a redirect to Libertarian Party of Michigan. Ericson has run as an independent, as a member of the United States Marijuana Party, and a member of the Democratic Party (United States). User:HopsonRoad 15:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support a Redirect to United States Marijuana Party. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not support a redirect, for the reason that HopsonRoad discusses, the subject of the article is an Independent politician and has also run as a candidate of several different parties. A redirect to U.S. Marijuana Party, one of the parties she's campaigned for, would be inappropriate. Keep. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:35, 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 merge to Shire of Banana#Chairmen and mayors per WP:ATD-M. While it's clear that a stand-alone article is not warranted, those favoring deletion without merging fail to address the merge-proposals in any way. As such, WP:PRESERVE favors retaining the material in some form or another over complete deletion. Regards So Why 08:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Staines

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

I'm nominating this with regret, but I just cannot see how this article qualifies. As a local politician he doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, and I can't see the coverage for WP:GNG; a few fairly standard obituaries, the somewhat substantial ones only in local papers, just don't cut it. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does feel sad that we keep anyone who ever served in the Queensland state legislature but don't keep this "Chairman of the Shire of Banana". But there's no case that it meets WP:NPOL. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The shire/county level of political office does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — an officeholder at that level can qualify for an article if he can be well-sourced over WP:GNG as significantly more notable than the norm, but is not automatically entitled to an article just for existing. But nothing here demonstrates a strong claim to wider notability — the only other thing here, really, is that he was a non-winning candidate in state and federal elections, but non-winning candidacies also don't constitute notability in and of themselves. And the sourcing isn't building a strong case for notability per GNG, either: right across the board, it consists of WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaigns of the type that every candidate in any election could always show, routine obituaries, and a family genealogy. This is not what it takes to make a rural shire councillor notable just for being a rural shire councillor. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary of Robert Staines into Shire of Banana#Chairmen and mayors. I agree that it's difficult to argue for notability but I hate to see well-sourced information lost to the reader. The Shire article has an under-populated section to list its chairmen and mayors and notability is not a requirement for mention there. Kerry (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Kerry Raymond above; definitely this is potentially useful information that I'd hate to lose, and it won't be undue on the shire's page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Merge A very definite case of non GNG material that should salvaged. Aoziwe (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of this bio no one will be surprised that I'm saying keep. I have added copy that I hope shows that this was not just an ordinary unsuccessful candidate. Given his high level federal opponent and the high esteem in which he was held by that man I see Staines as being notable. Please don't bury him in a merge or ditch him. His name in black, in lists and articles, will deprive readers of the ability to connect the dots and reach a fuller life story. Keep him alive in blue. Please don't bother responding to my comments as you won't change my opinion on the futility of these notablility discussions. I realise all comments are in good faith but as everyone has editing and writing to do lets just on with it. Cheers Castlemate (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking to change your mind here, and I really do appreciate the effort, but just registering that in my view the additions continue to be standard routine coverage for election candidates, which does not lead to notability. On the merge proposal, I have some concerns about WP:UNDUE (what about the rest of them, of which there are likely very many? Should we aim to profile all local mayors in LGA articles?). Frickeg (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: merging. There are some smatterings of info about mayors/chairmen in Qld LGA articles already, some of the larger LGAs have separate list articles for mayors. Let's worry about the problem of the overload of chairman information when the problem actually arises (current rate of development of those articles for small LGAs suggests it is unlikely to arise as a serious problem any time soon) and in any case I would still argue WP:NOTPAPER (and WP:UNDUE isn't an issue as nobody is suggesting we have a POV problem). Kerry (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting editors have a POV problem, but the Banana Shire article actually would if it gives extensive information about a single mayor without even mentioning most of the others, because that would suggest that Staines was vastly more significant than your average Banana Shire Chairman, and there's no evidence to suggest that is actually true. Frickeg (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyed comment All this sadness and regret and concern at the loss of well sourced information. If Staines isn't important then just remove his name altogether and stop gnashing your teeth about a problem that doesn't exist in any sense in the real world. Start to question why it matters to you and stop throwing around all these trumped up policies. The man is dead, his inclusion on Wikipedia benefits no one but provides information. If you don't get over this I will strip the hell out of the bio and then you can argue about my WP:Vandalism. Castlemate (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPOL and the basis of local coverage also fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge/Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - manly qualities and for his inherent sense of fair play aside, the subject does not appear to meet notability criteria for politicians.--Rpclod (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion is now longer than the harmless article you want to remove. The deletion discussion will remain forever but the useful information on Robert Staines will be deleted. This is indicative of how absurd editors chat fests really are. Castlemate (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

your comment above has zero bearing on the notability of this subject. We don't have WP articles simply because the information is WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was not supposed to have any bearing on notability but to illustrate stupidity. Your "vote" for "delete" had no bearing on this debate as it introduced nothing to the aurgument. This call for deletion is stagnant. Castlemate (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been resisting responding here, but honestly. I gave you every opportunity to improve the article before nominating it, gave you almost a month's notice in fact, went out of my way to make sure you would have every opportunity to respond, and I seem to remember you assuring me you wouldn't be offended if I did nominate it in the end. I don't appreciate your snide comments towards me or other editors here, I certainly don't appreciate you calling me or others stupid, and if you're not interested in Wikipedia policies or the formation of consensus, which is really the bedrock of the way things work here, then I cordially suggest that perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. Frickeg (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes edit summaries like this are clear personal attacks and failing to accept consensus. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the article dosent need improving. If it is so dangerous to have it on Wikipedia then reach consensus and remove it. As editors you are making fools of yourselves. You don't need me to attack you. The evidence of your stupidity is in every post where you worry so desperately worry about how sad you are and how much you regret having to tear down a perfectly respectable bio. If you have consensus then do your job. Don't accuse me of personal attacks. Castlemate (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm not offended. I'm endlessly amused by this sort of discussion because I don't take this seriously. Castlemate (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yet another personal attack As editors you are making fools of yourselves. If you don't take this seriously why do you endlessly argue here...? LibStar (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

because I find it endlessly entertaining. Just as I did when you and Frickeg both spent so much time arguing to tear down Trent Zimmerman before his election only to have the article replaced so so soon after his election. Your self important words speak for themselves. I am not attacking you. I don't need to as many are just enjoying you every time you enter these debates. Please find consensus and stop worrying about me and my opinion of you as an editor. Castlemate (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the consensus here is that this article will be merged or deleted. You seem to have so much difficulty accepting this. As for Zimmerman if he wasn't elected he wouldn't have an article. And we generally do not create an articles for political candidates. You seem to have great difficulty accepting consensus which is a tenet of Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close. I think an admin may have to make a call here between merge and delete. Keeping the discussion open is only prompting the article creator to engage in personal attacks, and it doesn't seem that anyone else wants to have their say. Frickeg (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close. The articles creator finds your patronising tone as tedious as you find his comments to be personal attacks. The creator felt the article was quite acceptable. He found your tone distasteful from day one. It is this sort of commentary that scares so many away from Wikipedia - "honestly. I gave you every opportunity to improve the article before nominating it, gave you almost a month's notice in fact, went out of my way to make sure you would have every opportunity to respond, and I seem to remember you assuring me you wouldn't be offended if I did nominate it in the end. I don't appreciate your snide comments towards me or other editors here." This comment shows your typical bullying tone. Castlemate (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and how about your clear personal attacks? LibStar (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here is my "distasteful tone", which Castlemate has carefully removed from his talk page. I leave it to others to judge. Frickeg (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gee, nothing at all distasteful. In fact accusing others of being distasteful or "bullying " without evidence is indeed a personal attack. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to the two of you. Hilarious! What a pair!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kangta discography#Live albums. czar 22:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1st Concert Pinetree: 20020824 Live

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NALBUM. SL93 (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kangta discography#Live albums. This album is far from notable, but readers may find this redirect to be of use. What do you think of my proposal, SL93? MartinJones (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kangta discography#Live albums appears to make the most sense. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:52, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants in Karachi

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

WP:NOTDIR. Written like a tourist brochure Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same as at the "sister" AfD on hotels: WP:TRAVELGUIDE; only two are individually notable. The rest is largely unsourced original research. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rename & redirect to List of restaurants in Karachi per precedence like List of restaurants in New York City, List of restaurants in London & List of restaurants in Lagos. Or merge and redirect to List of tourist attractions in Karachi. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need a list of restaurants for every city in the world, especially ones that are not notable to qualify for their own article, Wikipedia is NOT TripAdvisor. Ajf773 (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article in its current form needs an overhaul. However, that does not mean it is non-notable IMO. Karachi, being the largest city in Pakistan, has a notable cuisine and is home to several prominent restaurants. Pakistani dailies like Dawn and Express Tribune have covered heaps on this topic. Mar4d (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Local coverage only does not make restaurants (small businesses) notable. Ajf773 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gotta agree with the Nom here. Legacypac (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a directory or tour guide. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reloaded (2017 film)

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

This upcoming film fails WP:NFILM, with no substantial coverage in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted a redirect back in April. It only lasted a few days. Reloaded is not even the confirmed title. Not only isn't it confirmed, the exact opposite is true - it is confirmed that it is the "title placeholder". But, really, does anyone care about sourcing and notability anymore. A delete will only last a few days. At least with a redirect, we can have somewhat better control over it. Kellymoat (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a title (A Gentleman) being confirmed (as of June 5), there is still not enough information available (yet?) to create a decent article. It makes fraud and vandalism very easy.Kellymoat (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shooting began in May 2016 (per The Indian Express), the first schedule was wrapped up in September the same year (per Daily News and Analysis). 2nd phase of shooting began in Bangkok recently (per The Times of India). WP:NFF says that for films under production principal photography should meet the GNG criteria which is the case here. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skr15081997 and the many references available in the page itself. Has many prominent actors among the cast and deleting it won't be much useful anyway if the movie is releasing in August. Jupitus Smart 14:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - page has been moved to A Gentleman (2017 film), as the confirmed title. ansh 666 21:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The promo is out and the movie title and date has been officially announced. Please see at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7knmIcSaOk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulnayak (talk • contribs) 04:32, 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. I'm going to delete the four articles explicitly listed at the top. It doesn't look like Poker_Effective_Hand_Strength_(EHS)_algorithm got a clear discussion, so I'm going to skip that one; feel free to bring it back for a new AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poker probability (Texas hold 'em)

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tutorial on Texas hold'em. Due to the age/volume of content, I'm going to AfD rather than a straight redirect to Poker probability. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are of a similar nature:

Fold. Also Poker probability, Poker probability (Omaha) and especially Probability derivations for making rank-based hands in Omaha hold 'em. These are basic mathematics/probability calculations. Per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Poker probability might be salvageable, the others aren't. I'm adding them to this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all four articles explicitly nominated. This simply is not the way the project handles material. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A similar article, Poker_Effective_Hand_Strength_(EHS)_algorithm, while not as much a blizzard of numbers, this article similarly has no references, as well as bizarre formatting. 2005 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Selective) Merge to Poker probability. While this is an example of a NOTTEXTBOOK violation, the topic itself is clearly notable and source-able, so it should not be deleted when selective merging is an alternative. Regards So Why 07:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Obvious spam from the organisation using a shared account Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD1 Association

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

This is a press release. Tom McMillen has an article already. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable; article as-written is a stealth BIO. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:58, 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 redirect to Conservatism in the United Kingdom. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Party

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

Not notable enough to have its' own article. This subject is already covered in the Conservative_Party_(UK) article Rantpaste (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is overkill to have this if the term "nasty party" is already covered in another page.TH1980 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The nomination makes an untrue statement repeated by arguments above: it is not covered in the article Conservative Party (UK), neither the phrase, nor 2002 May's speech using it, nor the general criticisms of Howard and IDS's leaderships. Nonetheless, it could be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be better option per Colapeninsula (talk) reasoning. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to mislead, I thought this was covered directly in the Conservative Party (UK) article. It looks like no-one has ever attempted to add it either, according to WikiBlame (though I might be using that tool wrong, someone should confirm). Can we merge and create a Template:R from non-neutral name redirect, similar to The Torygraph? Personally I still think it should be deleted however - "Nasty Party" is very generic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantpaste (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Conservatism in the United Kingdom, where this transient characterization already has all the attention it deserves. --Lockley (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 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 speedy delete per WP:G11. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIRVISION

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

Promotional article about a not notable company. One RS contained in article, a thorough search offline finds no further sources (note that the name Airvision is in use by multiple companies). Company appears to have been formed in 2017. Chetsford (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to be a promotional article instead of an informational article. The subject lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 20:45, 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) 22:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammon kassab

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

This short article cites no sources, and Google searches turned up nothing but mirror sites. I believe this article to be a hoax. Margalob (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either a hoax or fails to meet notability criteria (WP:PERSON) --Hazarasp (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax article. Found no mention of him after a thorough online search. The article states that the person lived from 1918 to 1943, about 25 years. It seems unlikely for someone that young to have a successful oil business, let alone a 'scheme' that was hidden for years from the Allied powers - only to be revealed in 1945 (end of WW2), which is again unlikely since the person who was apparently involved in the communication, Ludwig Crüwell, had surrendered to the British in 1942. The line "This connection was not discovered until after his death and after the war ended and Nazi commanders admitted to the scheme" is contradictory to this fact. Furthermore, the line "He owned a Nazi motorcycle but it was assumed to have been salvaged from a previous Nazi visit to the area." seems to be written in an odd made-up fashion. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole thing is utterly incredible, so that I regard it as a HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) PamD 19:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FU: Friendship Unlimited

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

"Upcoming" film with no sources to indicate that principal photography has started per WP:NFF nor any other indication of notability. PamD 18:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: should have done more "BEFORE" - have now seen reviews etc - I just wish editors would bother to include sources themselves when creating an article. PamD 19:28, 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) 22:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmatis: The Ghosts of Maple Creek

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

Besides the GameZebo review, there isn't much on the game that would make it notable for its own page. The Giant Bomb link is just a user review while I'm unsure what Big Fish Games is in terms of reliability. GamerPro64 17:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Not much to write about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. It appears that there is something wrong with the refs in that article. I don't believe that there's much more out there that can help this one. South Nashua (talk) 18:15, 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 delete. czar 22:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Carroll

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet NHOCKEY; only 2 games at AHL level with no goals. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a stub that does not establish notability for the subject.TH1980 (talk) 01:14, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Carlson

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet NHOCKEY, less than 50 AHL matches. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:01, 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. czar 22:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Gentile

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete less than 50 AHL matches; no case for meeting GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale. --Parkfly20 (talk) 15:20, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Howells

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a hockey player; [13] suggest no notability now. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:03, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McKenzie (ice hockey, born 1984)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this satisfied WP:NHOCKEY back in 2008. Definitely does not pass today. I'm not sure about GNG. It may pass that. I'll do a bit of digging. Alaney2k (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doesn't meet NHOCKEY, but is close enough I don't consider that sufficient reason for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's about a season and a half worth of AHL games away from meeting NHOCKEY's games played minimum. That's not close. --Parkfly20 (talk) 15:09, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HEADT Centre

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

Article about a new research center at a university. Sources consist of press releases and routine coverage. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 11:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note the comments from the article creator at Talk:HEADT Centre. AllyD (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator fails WP:ORGDEPTH. FITINDIA 21:52, 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 No consensus. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 United States-Saudi Arabia arms deal

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

No evidence of lasting notability. As far as I can tell it's just another article about the Trump-related headline of the day. The only claim to notability is that it is the largest arms deal to date between these particular two countries, and of course the fact that Trump signed it. That doesn't come close to the notability of the 3 other arms deal articles we currently have (Al-Yamamah arms deal, ~~Al-Yamamah arms deal~~Egyptian-Czech arms deal, and South African Arms Deal). ~Awilley (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations and write a section there. Because of its large size, the deal could also be mentioned in Arms industry.@Awilley: You mentioned three notable deals but inadvertently cited the same one twice; did you mean to add the Iran–Contra affair perhaps? — JFG ^talk 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Is too soon, and we need to see this actually comes through but a 100+ billion arms deal is highly significant and actually represents more hardware than many small and medium sized military forces have in total.If this is not cancelled, this is super significant.Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this incessant creation of articles for every news story involving Trump is getting ridiculous. It's WP:TOOSOON for the page to exist, not to delete it. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support the redirect to Riyadh Summit 2017 suggested below, if that article continues to be developed. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Power~enwiki above; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because of WP: Due. The arms deal is by far the largest in history, to the tune of almost $500 billion dollars. It also dramatically deepens United States ties with Saudi Arabia, and Trump has expressed intent to have this be the jump point for an "Arabic NATO". Although early, this is clearly significant enough for a Wikipedia page. A lot of other articles with a lot less notability have been added.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/21/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-trip-creating-arabic-nato-fight-terrorism-jack-keane
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/05/17/trump-to-unveil-plans-for-an-arab-nato-in-saudi-arabia/
Etc.

PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them, including this article, created and revised extensively by you. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into the motivations of the editor - in this case - this is a huge arms deal. Arguably the largest in history (depends how we look at lend lease) - definitely the largest post cold-war. I think this article should've been created in another two weeks. Or a month. But the notability of this arms deal is clearly significant. Deleting this particular article is pointless.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Saudi Arabia–United States relations per JFG and WP:NOTNEWS. Simply too soon to know if it will have any impact at all like the other deals with articles. ansh 666 22:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations. Details and impact don't merit and independent article at this time. DuckMaestro (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect. I express no view on what it should be, but obviously the content should be preserved somewhere. Neutrality^talk 04:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations. Can be preserved there at that target article. Sagecandor (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. bd2412 T 16:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge or Redirect to Riyadh Summit 2017 (Saudi Arabia–United States relations is an alternative target for the merger and redirect). WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Delete is a fair solution too. Ceosad (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant event with sufficient sources available. MartinJones (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider reformulating into an intermediate-level article on US–Saudi military relations or US–Saudi weapons transfers. (Compare Israel–United States military relations.) These arms deals are highly notable and probably deserve more coverage than can justifiably fit into the historically broad article Saudi Arabia–United States relations. According to Reuters last September, the previous administration offered Saudi Arabia
more than $115 billion in weapons, other military equipment and training, the most of any U.S. administration in the 71-year U.S.-Saudi alliance. [...] made in 42 separate deals, and the majority of the equipment has yet to be delivered. [...] everything from small arms and ammunition to tanks, attack helicopters, air-to-ground missiles, missile defense ships, and warships. Washington also provides maintenance and training to Saudi security forces.
To me this article's focus on the sitting president is a bit undue in relation to this apparently bipartisan policy. Yes, the most recent deal is bigger, but does it truly represent a policy change? (See also [14], [15], [16], etc.) At minimum this article should mention the record of arms sales to Saudi Arabia since 2009. Yours, groupuscule (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations per JFG. PackMecEng (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If this deal is really as unprecedented as the sources say, it should be kept.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong merge - per reasons given above. Jdcomix (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - It's the biggest arms deal in American history, and it's definitely having an effect on Gulf relations. Ethanbas ^(talk) 16:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the deal obviously meeting WP:GNG, it is hardly the routine news that is barred by WP:NOTNEWS – it's the largest arms deal in American history. If merged, it shoudl go to the Saudi-US relations page or a new page just on the military relationship between the two and not to the Riyadh Summit, which occurred after the deal was cut. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Strong keep Conclusively passes WP:GNG and is a major incident and event in US-Saudi relations (and the history of the relevant industries, etc.). I cannot see any good reason to not discretize and directly treat it in its own article, instead of mashing it into another page somewhere; moreover, I cannot see why WP:NOTNEWS is even relevant. The fact of its being reported extensively in the news does not mean that WP:NOTNEWS obtains, per WP:NOTABLENEWS. Advocata (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to either Saudi Arabia–United States relations or Riyadh Summit 2017 for now. May end up being a lot bigger in scale, but for now the article (and coverage) looks mediocre enough to facilitage a merge. Booyahhayoob (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I vote *Merge especially in line of this reporting today: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/06/05/the-110-billion-arms-deal-to-saudi-arabia-is-fake-news/ SkagwayEntropy (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not such a big deal, apparently: $24 billion already decided earlier, and $86 billion in "future defense capabilities under development".[17][18] — JFG ^talk 06:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It is highly representative of the current situation of Gulf politics and the broader Middle East conflict including the Syrian civil war, the crisis with Qatar, the proxy war with Iran and the role of the Trump administration in it. MaeseLeon (talk) 23:46, 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 keep. So Why 07:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aedan McGrath

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

Notability not established in article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete ~~Delete~~ per nom. ~~Notability unclear or unestablished in current content.~~ The main sources are (respectfully) relatively commonplace obituaries, and do not exceed what might be expected to surpass WP:NOTMEMORIAL. To meet WP:AUTHOR we might expect to see a body of work that has been subject to independent review/coverage. And, while not formal guideline, to meet WP:RELPEOPLE we might expect to see broader coverage of related works. In general I'm not seeing how WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are met. UPDATED: StAnselm highlights that various other book sources (not mentioned in the current article) indicate SIGCOV. However, from what I can see, this coverage primarily relates to the subject's imprisonment. While some of that coverage is non-trivial, to my own eye, it doesn't surpass that required to surpass WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM. Guliolopez (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez: Please see my comment below. I trust the follow-up obituary is enough to change your !vote. St Anselm (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But not much. Guliolopez (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: easily passes WP:GNG, as a Google Books search indicates. Both the nomination and the delete !vote above appear to rely on the sources cited in the article, but they are much more plentiful than that. WP:BEFORE has simply not been followed. See, for example, half a page on the account of his arrest in a book published by A&C Black. As far as obituaries go, the one cited in the article is indeed commonplace: the Irish Times followed it up three days later with a much more comprehensive one. Please do your own searches, people! St Anselm (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are indeed additional sources; but half a page on an arrest isn't doing anything to actually establish notability - which is the problem. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Irish times obituary is not routine. There are also quite a few results when searching newspapers.com, some of which are in depth.[19] Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?! The Irish Times "obituary" is an entire four sentences long, one of which announces his death. The detail added to the article from newspapers.com is that he set up 6 branches of the Legion of Mary. How is that WP:NOTABLE?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have clearly not read the second obituary to which I have linked repeatedly. It is much more comprehensive. St Anselm (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the citation and content I added to the page, it was from one of many newspaper articles over his 30-40 year career in the US after leaving China. Most of the articles in the list I linked in my previous comment in this AfD are printed concurrent with his giving a talk advocating for the Legion and speaking about his life in the area the newspaper serves. Many of them provide different details, but that article was one of the first and the details in it were details not already covered in the page. Well over a dozen of the articles give in depth coverage to McGrath, although I didn't find other material from what I added and what was already in the page. StAnselm responded adequately to your other point. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, I read the obit linked in the article. Nobody has bothered adding the more extensive obit to the article, hence my mistake. The more extensive obit covers in more detail the life of a no doubt decent man, who still would appear to have not met any criteria for WP WP:NOTABILITY. This is an encyclopedia, not a webhost for listing every priest who ever lived... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Sources are routine and although there is a reference in a book also, it doesn't establish any reasons for notability, it is an account of an incarceration. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 00:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Missionaries imprisoned by the Communists and who then wrote about it are probably notable. For a Protestant equivalent, I would cite Geoffrey Bull. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Google Books results plus the Irish Times obit suggests to me that we are dealing with a notable person here. Mentions in the books are normally a paragraph or two in length, and exist in at least three pages worth of Google Books results that is turning up mainly reliable sourcing. That's enough to get him over GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 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 delete. czar 22:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Morley

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT, WP:GNG or any other part of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a small theater producer in London [20]. No sign of GNG which is the appropriate threshold here. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small time theatre producer with no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kissami family

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

Short article, or long stub, about a Moroccan family, or about its name, or both. Notability of the subject isn't demonstrated. Sourcing of its content seems defective.

The equivalent article in fr:WP was deleted after an AfD. The very first delete !vote reads Suppression immédiate Je suis l'auteur de cet article. Je ne considère plus le sujet de l'article comme notoire et suggère sa suppression immédiate. (I.e. "Speedy deletion: I am the author of the article. I no longer consider the subject of the article noteworthy and suggest its immediate deletion.")

Category:Kissami family -- which I think equally unworthy of retention, though I suppose this isn't the right place for a deletion request -- has two members: this article, and Faysel Kasmi, a mere stub about a young Belgian footballer which, unsurprisingly, says nothing about the significance to him or anyone else of his surname.

This category has a French- and an Arabic-language equivalent. fr:Catégorie:Famille Kissami has just two members: fr:Sidi Ali ben Saïd (a mere stub) and fr:Mosquée Sidi Ali ben Saïd (a mere stub about a mosque named after him). ar:تصنيف:عائلة_قيسامي is empty (despite ar:قيسامي الحسين). -- Hoary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources given do not appear to be significantly about this family, there are no members of the family blue-linked from the article, and there do not appear to be any WP:RS that would indicate passing WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Moreover, article suffers from WP:Orphan.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gyansagar (Chani)

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

Fails WP:GNG.Scarce mention in WP:RS. Winged Blades^Godric 16:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 16:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the cited sources are either not independent or not significant mentions or both. No other evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 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. I'd also note the following sources, though I can't confirm their independence/reliability.[21][22] czar 22:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin Dayanand

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

Lots of link padding but this person fails WP:GNG. Just not notable. Someone deproded - maybe accidentally? Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a personal bio of a non-notable person. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite an interesting edit history here. The creation of an SPA. Leaving aside the promotion or self-promotion, the subject is not notable. --Lockley (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 13:43, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playgolf Northwick Park

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

Non-notable sporting facility. The article has been on Wikipedia for over five years with no real expansion of content. Article has also been nominated as a PROD, but the reasoning behind the keep is unclear. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable from a golfing point of view. Seems to be called "Playgolf London" now. Playgolf also has Playgolf Colchester and Playgolf Bournemouth, so if there's any interest it would be for "Playgolf" from the business aspect. It's a commercial organisation, like countless others. Nigej (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs above, per Nigej, may be merge into an article about the "Playgolf" business franchise??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:18, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manel (term)

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

This page documents an unnotable tumblr/twitter hashtag neologism (WP:NOTDIC/WP:NOTNEO), seemingly to promote the term. A relevant issue notice has been present nearly since the page's creation, and has not been addressed. While the neologism got a small amount of attention in some reliable sources (as a scare-quoted neologism), that coverage was limited to late May 2015 and was not sustained (WP:SUSTAINED). Most of the older versions of the pages contained instructions for creating meme-images, which leads me to believe the page was created to promote or add legitimacy to some private jargon (WP:PROMOTION).

It should also be noted that nearly all of the reliable-sources hits for this word are actually for people with the Spanish name "Manel," not for the term as used in the article.

GretLomborg (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that the term itself is notable, as described in the nomination. An article about the term is therefore inappropriate. However, I think content regarding sexism in the context of discussion panels could conceivably be supported by reliable sources and the appropriate place to do that would be in the article panel discussion. Deli nk (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC; insufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage in the few RS that actually mention the term- ostly only of a passing nature- does not meet WP:GNG. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:23, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadab Ali

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

Sounds impressive, but I can find only one paper in PubMed, and Google Scholar shows it is uncited, DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cowbellytv

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

No reliable sources. No independent claim to notability other than being semi-famous for being semi-famous. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Breaking site TOS's to get purposefully banned and asking for stupid comments to create a show around doesn't make you famous in the least. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 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) 22:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted previously due to lack of indepth coverage in sources. Now re-created but sources still only deal tangentially with the topic, so fails WP:GNG. Yobol (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage from mainstream media. Therefore lacks notability. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG just as the previously deleted version did. The sources discuss the drug and its rare side-effects, but make hardly any mention of the PFS Foundation, the subject of this article. The sources fall well short of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for the Foundation. Although they may be useful for expanding Finasteride #Controversy, they are insufficient to establish notability for this organisation. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article promotes a condition as accepted when this is not really so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned up some of the annoying name-dropping in the article, including naming parts of the NIH as if they were separate from the NIH. The (already cited) sources that I looked at during that process were distinctly unimpressive – one tiny step above a press releases, at best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization exists, but seems to have no claim of notability in the article or in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence that the organization meets notability requirements. Deli nk (talk) 12:43, 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. Salt can be asked for at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Asyraf

AfDs for this article:

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

As was the case five years ago, he has still not managed a club in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and he has still not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As for his playing career, I didn't see anything that suggests he ever played in a fully professional league; in fact, some of the teams he's played for don't even appear to have Wikipedia articles. I was gooing to suggest a redirect to the team he currently coaches, Eunos Crescent FC, but given that that team isn't in a fully professional league, I'm not sure if he would be a viable search term at this point. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:22, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Genesis HealthCare Locations

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

A list of locations served by some nursing home chain. I don't know how this can be considered as encyclopedic. No references have been provided as well. Was CSDed and deleted earlier as WP:G11. The author created the article again, and the new CSD tag was removed by him. Jupitus Smart 15:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: I understand why the article was nominated for deletion, and I did not intend on removing this from the page. I just felt a speedy deletion was a bit much, and wanted time to discuss my reasoning, as you can see on the article's talk page. Thank you.--AirportExpert (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Just to recap what I originally stated: "This page is not unambiguously promotional, because in no way is it intended on promoting the business. Would you remove an airline's list of served airports, claiming that the list is used to promote the airline's business? It is simply a list of served markets."--AirportExpert (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

For some reason I did not get the ping, probably because your signature is messed up. Anyway I have nothing more to add to my nomination. Cheers. Jupitus Smart 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. Honestly I think a COI investigation should be opened, this seems very suspicious. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided my reasons why this should remain. For the record, I do NOT work for the company, and have been editing for years. I edit companies with a presence in Connecticut, and this happens to be one. To incinuate that is just nonsense.--AirportExpert (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Delete There's nothing notable here and not one of the locations is likely to merit their own article. Perhaps a merge to Genesis HealthCare could be considered, though I'm not sure what would be added through a merge. Alansohn (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline G11 material and totally unencyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. People don't use an encyclopedia to find lists of nursing homes. Perhaps a broader description of the range of facilities could be added to the main Genesis HealthCare article. Do not merge this list there (not even as a collapsible box) - it is unencyclopedic. I agree with @AirportExpert: that one must assume good faith, and I agree we probably shouldn't have speedied the work of a longterm contributor. JFW | T@lk 08:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That I fully agree to. I just saw the article and Speedied it believing that such an article can only be made by an inexperienced editor. However when I saw that he has around 3K edits (not perfect edits though), I had doubts about my call, but the admin concurred with my judgement, and I felt vindicated. I still believe that the article was made in good faith considering the analogy he presented, though the article still needs to be deleted as its unencyclopedic. Jupitus Smart 09:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Why on earth was this article created, AirportExpert? There are no other articles like this - and if there are, point them out so they can go through AfD too. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could look this up on Yellow Books if I wanted, not Wikipedia. — JJ Be rs 16:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my rationale for creating this page above. You could also look up an airline's destinations list on the airline's website, so why should an airline's destination list be an article? This is the list of markets served in a specific industry, just like for any other industry. Secondly, just because there are no other articles in a specific category, that doesn't mean that new categories cannot be created. New categories are created on Wikipedia everyday.--AirportExpert (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Well, have a read through WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY and you'll see exactly why this type of article is not what Wikipedia is for. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge and delete: I think this list should be merged into Genesis HealthCare#Locations. Seriously, AirportExpert, there's already a place ready and waiting for it. I would recommend the list be put in as a collapsing table, but then again, that section is at the end of the article. Or be bold and cut and paste your list into Genesis HealthCare#Locations yourself and save the hassle. Not for nothing, but that edit summary on the list makes it look very much like a commercial promotion. Wikipedia is not a directory. — Myk Streja ^talk to me 04:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AirportExpert, why did you create a separate list? You were the one to install the link at Genesis HealthCare. — Myk Streja ^talk to me 04:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, we are not a directory nor a webhost for this company. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we close this now, the consensus is clearly showing a delete. —JJ B^e ^rs 15:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes JJBers. There's consensus that this page is not encyclopedic. At best, the content should be synthesized into the existing Genesis HealthCare article, but would not merit its own page. While I believe good faith was exhibited, a lengthy directory listing does not add value to the community.Lslong427 (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Schelander

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:GNG, as I could find only interviews (which do not confer notability) or blogs covering him to any appreciable extent. Does not seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. He is listed as a former member of Royal Hunt, but no other notable band, as far as I can tell, so does not satisfy #6 in WP:MUSICBIO. The article also reads like a piece written by an 10-year-old fan. If kept, it would have to be completely reworked and I'm not seeing the sources to do it. No longer a penguin (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any good sources in English or Swedish. The original version of the article claimed that he was a member of Pain of Salvation but that info was removed in 2009, and the band's article only lists him as a "former touring member". --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am, too, failing to verify this, and it doesn't seem like it is very verifiable. /Julle (talk) 19:23, 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) 22:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronanki gopal krishna

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

Fails notability Sulaimandaud (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG; this teacher also only seems notable for WP:ONEEVENT Spiderone 13:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Narky Blert (talk) 17:45, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despair (2017 film)

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

apparently non-notable film: IMDB is the only source. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an internet-only film, with no indication of notabilty. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 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. So Why 08:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Henze

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link. The best is one para entry in Hitler's Stuka Squadron but it's insufficient, and the rest are passing mentions. Franz Kurowski's Luftwaffe Aces is non RS. No de.Wiki article. Successful completion of missions (# of sorties flown) is not part of SOLDIER.

Per the outcome of the discussion on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists.

In this case, the redirect has been challenged with the rationale that the subject "commanded one of the first bomber wings of the Bundesluftwaffe". No sources have been offered, while command of a wing in peacetime does not meet SOLDIER's criterion of "commanding a significant number of troops in battle". Significant RS coverage on this career in the German Air Force is not found either: link; Kurowski again (Denied Paternity: Wehrmacht Officers Created the Bundeswerh) is non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He did not win the highest award for valor or the second highest multiple times; topped out as a colonel.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to be valid references to him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which references would be sufficient for a stand-alone article? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably only one that focuses on him specifically, but his war service seems to have him mentioned, by my count, in at least 40 books (I stopped counting, probably a lot more than that. That's just books, I didn't check articles at all). Considering *also* he is Recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, and he flew like 1000(!) sorties or something, I think all up, this warrants at least a short page for him in Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves. That means he essentially won it twice. Although its ubiquity means the Knight's Cross cannot be considered the highest award, it is certainly important enough to be notable if won more than once. It is certainly on a par with an American winning the DSC twice or a Briton winning the DSO twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOLDIER does not apply in this case. Only the awards for valour are covered by SOLDIER #1, not for meritorious service / successful completion of missions. In any case, SOLIDER is just an essay and is thus subordinate to GNG. We should make sure that Karl Henze has been a subject of significant coverage in independent RS before keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the distinction did matter, you appear to be making an unsupported assumption as to what his Knight's Crosses were awarded for. As far as I'm concerned, it's covered by WP:SOLDIER and that, despite "only" being an essay, is generally recognised as the notability standard for military biographies. In any case, I think there's a very good case for also assuming the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves is covered by WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another bio where one would think given the high award of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and missions flown, one could expand the article with greater detail (cited to RS sources). I don't write on Luftwaffe pilots but I would think someone could expand the article accordingly. It is bare-bones. Kierzek (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Henze did not receive his awards and flew over 1,000 combat missions. Rather he received the KC because he completed 430 combat missions and earned the Oakleaves because he completed 1,000 combat missions. Yet Wikipedia articles do not honor people for a certain number of combat missions completed, but reflect significant coverage by RS sources. Apart from the KC directories the usual suspects here are notorious militaria writer Franz Kurowski with Verleugnete Vaterschaft. Wehrmachtsoffiziere schufen die Bundeswehr (2000) and former Luftwaffe propagandist George Brütting with Das waren die Stuka Asse. There are also a few lines on him in Mike Spick's Luftwaffe Bomber Aces (2001), a militaria book devoid of any notes and featuring a very small bibliography. So you might put together a career summary as for nearly any other KC recipient, but I do not consider that significant coverage by RS. Bomber pilots did not receive as much as attention as fighter pilots, Hans-Ulrich Rudel being the most notable exception, and neither did Henze.--Assayer (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- The keep arguments at this AfD are along the lines of WP:ITSNOTABLE and / or "coverage exists". These are not valid deletion discussion arguments and I believe that they should be discounted. Furthermore, such interpretations of SOLDIER is not consistent with the close of the discussion regarding the "Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners": link, which showed that for a high proportion of Knight's Cross winners, irrespective of grade, significant RS coverage does not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't notice my citing of WP:ANYBIO #1 then? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed but I do not agree that Oak Leaves meets ANYBIO#1. The [Discussion on the notability of Knight's Cross winners was quite conclusive in that regard, IMO. In any case, any claim to notability needs to be backed up by actual sources, and this has not happened as of yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. He meets WP:SOLDIER 5 as a Gruppenkommandeur of a unit that specifically saw military action (this is the same level as the Group, which is specifically cited in criterion 5 of SOLDIER). I have the impression that most of the Delete contributors have either not read the article under discussion, or WP:SOLDIER, clearly enough: we should not be having this debate. The oak leaves, in this case, are a complete red herring. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is not much to read about Karl Hanke. Criterion 5 of WP:SOLDIER as such does not presume notability. Rather it is but one criterion to presume that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify as notable. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. To mention Hanke in a list, is exactly what is being proposed, because the coverage in RS is anything but broad.--Assayer (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I believe the last "Keep" vote to be a misinterpretation of SOLDIER #5, which requires a command of

"a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents)."

The subject commanded a sub-unit of the Sturzkampfgeschwader 77, being a Gruppenkommandeur. The commander of a wing would be a Kommodor. The subject under discussion topped out as a Major / sub-unit commander in the Luftwaffe; it's a far cry of what SOLDIER requires. In any case, SOLDIER is just an essay and SIGCOV has not been presented by any of the keep voters. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, in 1944 Henze became Kommodore of Schlachtgeschwader 102 and in January 1945 of Schlachtgeschwader 103, both of which were training units and did not see combat. Shortly before the end of the war, in April 1945, he became Kommodore of Schlachtgeschwader 151. And in the Bundeswehr he commanded Jagdbombergeschwader 35. But to come up with that information I had to search certain Internet sites, which I do not consider utterly reliable. Even Kurowski (cited above) deals with these commands only summarily. That's the problem with "significant coverage".--Assayer (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Training wings that did not see combat do not count towards SOLDIER#5. Likewise, commanding a unit during the last month of the war does not count either, IMO, as sorties were limited due to lack of fuel. Essentially, Luftwaffe by that time seized to be an effective fighting force. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that the GNG demands, and he definitely doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't have any experience with WP:SOLDIER, so it's hard for me to judge the merits here. If I were to close this now, I would close it as No Consensus, but I'm going to take the (admittedly unusual) action of relisting this a third time, in the hopes that we can find some clear consensus, not just on this particular article, but on the broader question of what WP:SOLDIER requires. There is a lively debate here, which is touching on valid points, so I'm cautiously optimistic that continuing the discussion might bring us resolution one way or the other
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, honestly we need a temporary speedy delete on these things. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We shuld not be overriding the general guidelines for a instance that is so borderline, both in commo nsense importance and in sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of book mentions. Surviving 1000 combat missions is significant (Allied tours of duty were 25-40 mission before cycling back to inactive/training). Wing commander post-war, and briefly in the war.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient substance for a biography, the medal does not confer notability, references appear to be limited to brief mentions in lists of medal recipients in Wehrmacht fanboy literature. Sandstein 19:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I added a number of sources - WWII and post-war.. post-war, among other things, he was the first commander of JB-35 (which later became JG-41) - a F-84F bomber wing at new airfield at Husum. He managed to avoid the 1961 F-84 Thunderstreak incident which was JB-32.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources added is Franz Kurowski, a known fabulist and apologist. A hack writer with over 400 titles under his own name and various pseudonyms, he is best remembered for his contributions to the Landser-pulp genre, or Landser Hefte. This type of literature aims to heroicise the military men and strays into historical fiction while doing so. Not a suitable source for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many trivial mentions doesn't equate to significant coverage. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and it's not clear if he passes. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PhilKnight who reminds us that trivial mentions do not make a significant coverage that notability requires. Ifnord (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ali Qazi

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

He is elected mayor of Jhang in local elections and we don't consider those people notable falls in 3rd point of WP:NPOL. I also searched but can't find anything so he fails WP:GNG too. Greenbörg (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Sulaimandaud (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just to be clear, the place where he's mayor is more than large enough that he would be accepted as passing WP:NPOL if the article could be substanced and reliably sourced as satisfying the "who have received significant press coverage" condition for local officeholders — but indeed being a mayor is not an automatic NPOL pass that entitles him to keep a one-sentence stub that's parked entirely on primary sources rather than media coverage. Since I can't read Urdu or Punjabi in order to properly evaluate whether proper reliable source coverage exists or not, I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody who can read one of those languages can actually show improved evidence of legitimate sourcing, but in its current form this is not a keepable article at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails WP:Politician. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic engineering

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

non-notable Pakistani ship repair company, fails WP:GNG. The refs are all listings on databases. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable.Seaweed (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 18:38, 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 keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voldemort: Origins of the Heir

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

Not notable. I don’t see we have a criteria for fan films; it certainly has not and will very likely never satisfy any of the criteria for commerical or artistically valuable films. Only refs are to blogs noting the release of a teaser trailer, and the "litigation" seems to be just Warners asking them to stop doing it commercially so they did. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fan films certainly can meet GNG, but this one does not seem to do so.★Trekker (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a professional fan film. There has been a legal complain by Warner Brothers which ended in Warner Brothers allowing the film to be created. They got millions by crowd funding. It has been covered by many newspapers for a long period. International newspapers as well. And I am quite sure they will get more public response after the release this year. So it is notable according to WP:NOTE standards. According to WP:NFILM: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." ^[4]--Rævhuld (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only has this received a lot of media attention it's been recognised by Warner Brothers and JK Rowling herself. Brocicle (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.mrsinternational.com/mrs-international-pageant.php#A
^ https://www.google.com/search?q=zunera+mazhar
^ https://www.upwork.com/o/jobs/browse/?q=wikipedia
^ "voldemort origins of the heir j k rowling". Google Search. 1900-03-17. Retrieved 2017-06-05.

Keep This has been receiving a lot of media attention, plus Warner Bros has allowed it to be created. This is, so to say, an official unofficial film, in such that it isn't being produced by JKR/Warner Bros, but they have approved it. Mydabo (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mydabo: "It’s the end and the beginning. The many becoming the few becoming the One." – Kaecilius, from Doctor Strange (film). —usernamekiran(talk)

Keep as per HisDabo —usernamekiran(talk) 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. In addition we have a precedent: Find Makarov: Operation Kingfish is a similar fan made movie in case of call of duty ....... Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* as according to User:JohnBlackburne "Only refs are to blogs noting the release of a teaser trailer" when in fact the first 2 references which are used often in the article go to the official page for the production company of the fan movie. 11:43 7 June (BTS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.60.86 (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs to a production company are equally useless as blog refs. Where are the reliable sources if this is notable?★Trekker (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* as according to User:Arkhan Daxter. If the film has received millions in crowd funding, is receiving publicity from the media and Warner Brothers' has allowed them to make the fan film, then the page deserves to stay. Although if the page is deleted I would suggest a "Fan Made HP Film Page" which would include the other 3 major fan films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkhan Daxter (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decantation

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

It's contains almost the same information as Separatory funnel, except with far less detail. Squidorama (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The similarity ends with their being separations based on differing density of non-soluble materials. A separatory funnel is for two liquid phases, whereas the decantation article talks only about solid vs liquid (though I've done it with two liquids). A sep-funnel is for taking the bottom (more dense) layer off the bottom, whereas decantation pours the top (less dense) layer off the top. Those are quite substantial differences. The decantation article is an ununified mess of uncited specific and possibly undue-weight niche applications, but it's not "delete the article" bad. DMacks (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DMacks. I would have improved the article had it not been for my laziness to take out my old science books. But even at its present state, the article is good enough to remain. Jupitus Smart 10:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 10:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Decantation is different from the idea of separation in that it separates a solid, so this article is not a duplicate. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:23, 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 speedy delete. by User:Nyttend as WP:G7 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Sommerhoff

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

I'm not convinced that this artist meets the criteria for WP:NARTIST - she is not widely cited or regarded as an important figure by peers, she does not appear to have invented a significant new concept, theory or technique, she has not created a significant work that has been the subject of extensive critical acclaim, and her work is not part of any significant gallery's permanent collection. More sources may be available in German, but I have struggled to find anything beyond gallery listings and social media. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to have been created by someone close to the subject, and without any clear understanding of what Wikipedia is for. Of the three sources in the article, one is written by (apparently) her husband on her own website, one does not mention her at all, and the third has only minimal coverage. This article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung has rather more. I'm afraid that it confirms that she is not notable by our standards: it's a review of a show in her own workshop, she has a painting in an office in Copenhagen and in a doctor's surgery – these are not grounds for inclusion here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article perfect shows what not to do when writing about artists; establish some false equivalency between a very minor artist and a great one by highlighting a shared interest. She's read Goethe (like Runge, Turner and Kandinsky), she's been influenced by Nolde, Chagall, von Jawlensky and Rothko, she listens to Bach, she shows her work at at gallery that named itself after a real museum. Another popular technique is trying to establish that already as a child the subject was some sort of creative genius. It's all completely meaningless. What we (ought to) care about is mature artists with a significant body of work who have been influential themselves. This subject fails that, and every criterion in WP:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotional, and the artist is not notable. The claim that an artist is in the "permanent collection" of a commercial gallery is erroneous; having works on sale is not the same as being part of the permanent collection of an art museum. Netherzone (talk) 17:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Algatron

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

almost no relevant references in Google Scholar for this undeveloped concept. There are some links in google to companies trying to implement it. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FSLabs

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a product brochure for an unremarkable business. Wikipedia is not a web host for this company's promotional messages. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 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 keep.

Who created the article and why is not relevant outside WP:G5 which does not apply here; neither is potential canvassing, if one really thought the limited message to a single editor constitutes canvassing (it doesn't).

Multiple non-sock editors argued that this article meets the notability guideline while the delete !voters can be summarized as WP:VAGUEWAVE (Exemplo347, Force Radical) and WP:UGLY (Techyan) without actually discussing the sources provided in the context of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Regards So Why 07:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silu Wang

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Article was deleted under WP:A7, but recreated. Citobun (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A page on the subject was previously created by WP:SPA account Michaeljwei and speedy-deleted; it has now been recreated by another WP:SPA, James19792017. The various recent press items such as the China Daily profile/Q&A begins to contribute towards notability, though I see these as an early-career items. The article text is effectively a CV and again is indicative of no more than a working musician in early-career. At this point, I do not think WP:MUSICBIO notability is demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Google her name in Chinese "王丝路钢琴" (Silu Wang Piano) has returned 823,000 results. She was reported by several major Chinese media, including China Daily, Sohu, Sohu Music, huanqiu, UC News, China.com.cn. She is young and in her early-career stage, but these doesn't make her less notable. As a classical music fan, I know some of the competitions are indeed very high standard. e.g. the “CMB - Sunflower” National Youth Piano Competition is the biggest in China with over 20000 competitors in 2016, and the SpringBoard International Concerto Competition is very famous in the UK. Sadly, the only Chinese pianist most people know is Lang Lang. Those other young pianists are equally talented. 82.132.228.146 (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — 82.132.228.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do you have a reliable source regarding prominence of the Springboard Concerto competition? It appears to be part of Brighton & Hove Performing Arts Festival, held in a school hall, with a first prize of £100 and "not restricted to amateur performers" [23]. AllyD (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- For piano competitions, cash prize is not the most important criteria. A quick search of the Springboard competition shows adjudicators are all famous musicians. --Michaeljwei (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with AllyD that this article does look like a CV of the pianist. But all artists wiki articles are effectively CVs. As long as contents are referenced from valid sources, it should be kept. Based on references of current version of this article: Jinling Evening News is top 10 daily news paper in China with circulation of 1.2 million; China Daily is one of the biggest Chinese state-run media (like BBC in the UK) with circulation of 0.5 million (English paper version). Huanqiu, another major Chinese state media with circulation of 1.5 million (Chinese Edition) + 0.2million (English Edition). And every Chinese knows Sohu as one of China's biggest online services provider. --Michaeljwei (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — Michaeljwei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All your edits (on both English and Chinese Wikipedia) revolve around the article subject. Please review WP:PROMOTION – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion. Furthermore, in accordance with WP:PAID, if you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. Citobun (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to assault me personally instead of focusing on the content of the article. No one paid me. I just felt frustrated that my first ever contribution on wiki was treated unfairly despite the fact that I followed all the guidances that I know of. I am new and probably not as experienced as yourself. But you cannot accuse me as a paid promotor. Who would pay a newly registered wiki user? BTW, I did contribute to the Chinese wiki article but I have no idea who created that article originally. Please do not abuse your power as an experienced wiki user. Of course I will try my best to fight for wikipedia fairness --Michaeljwei (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaeljwei. Citobun (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the AfD, as I cannot review the reported Chinese-language sources, but some folks are reminded to review WP:AGF and WP:BITE when contemplating applicable policy. Advocata (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original discussion WP:MUSICBIO - Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles， Silu Wang satisfies at least the following:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
- She had major Chinese media coverage.

9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
- She won prize in several major music competitions.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.
- She performed for a film sponsored by British Film Institute. --Michaeljwei (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. WP:TOOSOON is when topics are not verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. In this case, any one of of the three criteria will make her an eligible notable musician. She satisfies all three, with verifiable independent sources. According to Wikipedia:MUSICBIO, if you believe this is a WP:TOOSOON case, you are basically saying 1. all those media covered her including Chinese state media are insignificant, and 2. all those competitions are insignificant, and 3. films sponsored by BFI is insignificant. --Michaeljwei (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in Chinese appear sufficient to clear the notability bar. It's true that the article looks like a CV but that's not a reason for deletion. Pichpich (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Pichpich was canvassed to !vote in this discussion by the article's creator. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That invitation to participate in this AfD was completely neutral. Nothing wrong with that. Pichpich (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article has nothing else but a lead section made by only one sentence and a timeline which is not supposed to be used on Wikipedia. It does have enough references, which shows that this article would have enough notability. But the style of it seems like an autobiography or a fansite. --Techyan（Talk） 08:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do agree that this article does meet notability criteria but needs reformatting, I believe you may want to change your vote to Keep or Weak Keep? --Michaeljwei (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article does need cleanup but if you agree that the topic is sufficiently notable, you should be in favour of keepimg it. Please remember that deletion is not cleanup. Pichpich (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. WP:toosoon applies .Come Back 5 years later if singer become notable.PS:Adding A SPI investigation about these 3 editors FORCE RADICAL (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

notability evidences have been clearly provided as above. Three notability criteria apply. Have you even read comments above? I created the original article and was speed deleted. I am NOT an editor of this newly created article. I am helping to keep this article because the pianist does meet all criteria therefore it is not fair to delete this article.--Michaeljwei (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't answer every single !vote, Michaeljwei. Take a step back and let this discussion run its course. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Michaeljwei clearly demonstrate that Silu Wang passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. She has received substantial coverage in China Daily, Sohu, Huanqiu Shibao, and China Internet Information Center.
The article largely is neutral and contains only facts. Any non-neutral wording is minor and can be handled through editing the article instead of deleting it. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
Cunard (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bbb23 (talk · contribs) confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaeljwei that the named accounts Michaeljwei (talk · contribs) and James19792017 (talk · contribs) are likely the same person. Of the two, only Michaeljwei has participated in this AfD.
Forceradical (talk · contribs) later added Pichpich (talk · contribs) to the list of suspected sockpuppets even though it is very unlikely and there is no evidence that Pichpich, an established editor, is the same person as Michaeljwei.
Bbb23, after Forceradical's change, this makes your "The two named accounts are Likely" comment ambiguous. Would you consider clarifying your comment on the page? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Forceradical's rather clumsy addition occurred days after I posted my finding. Therefore, it wasn't ambiguous at the time. I have updated the SPI to reject Forceradical's allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating the SPI, Bbb23 (talk · contribs). I agree that your comment was not ambiguous when you posted it. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Exemplo347. I wanted to follow your advice and try not to reply, but facing such an accusation again, I think I should say something. As a new wikipedia user, I find it very odd that instead of focusing on the content of the article and check it's authenticity, some people started attacking all editors of this article and everyone who voted Keep. Although I believe that has nothing to do with if this article should be kept or not, please allow me to say again, I am not James19792017 (talk · contribs). Dear Bbb23 (talk · contribs), could you please clarify why do you think we are "Likely" the same person?--Michaeljwei (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michaeljwei (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#CheckUser. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Bbb23Sorry for my rather clumsy allegation.I did so because as said be Exemplo above he canvassed for Techyans vote which struck me as suspicions .It was my error that I in that spur of a moment forgot to check the contributions log.Please don't mistake it for bad faith.FORCE RADICAL (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeenu Nazeer

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

Non notable anchor/musician. Created by a single purpose account indicating possible WP:COI and probably Sockpuppetry considering the impressive article structure for a newbie. Anyway fails WP:GNG and reads like a CV with a lot of weasel words, which hardly mean anything. Jupitus Smart 08:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't appeared in any notable TV programmes nor has she won any notable awards Spiderone 13:41, 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 speedy delete. G11: Unambiguous promotion Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Ramesh Bhojraj Dwivedi

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

Two sources are other wiki pages(and are not relevant to this article) and other two sources area promotional websites. In addition the article is written in promotional style not encyclopedic content and style Sulaimandaud (talk) 08:11, 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 keep in one form or another. There is no consensus whether to keep this article in its current form, under another name (and if so, which one) or whether to merge it somewhere but there is clear consensus that the content should not be deleted. Moving or merging can be discussed at the talk page. Regards So Why 07:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rothwell banding system

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

Prod removed without adding refs or claim of notability. This seems to be a very obscure technical spec who which there is little or no coverage in RS. Does not meet GNG. MB 17:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you had waited five minutes before a knee jerk nomination, or spoke to me first, you would see that I was in the process of adding references. And if you had checked the history first, you would have found that this reference was inappropriately deleted, I suspect because the convenience link had gone dead, although the edit summary says that refs were deleted because they do not mention Rothwell. In fact, the document refers to the Rothwell scale throughout. SpinningSpark 17:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an ISO standard on the scale. There are a number of scholarly papers that discuss it: this paper, this paper and this paper investigate the usefulness of the method. And as I said in the post above, the Health Technology Assessment document uses the Rothwell scale throughout in a comparative evaluation. SpinningSpark 17:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, the title should be moved to Rothwell scale (or to Rothwell method or Rothwell system). The current title does not seem to occur in the literature. SpinningSpark 18:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure it fits the style guidelines, but if this is defined in ISO 11948, ISO 11948 (or a variant) makes the most sense to me for the page name. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 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 00:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Incontinence pad if this Rothwell system is specific to that product, and it seems to be. Something here worth saving but probably not in a standalone article. --Lockley (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions.

Comment There are actually two possible merge targets, Incontinence pad and Adult diaper, though merging them is also a possibility. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ISO 11948-1. Some references are already present, more appear to be extant. This is a niche technical specification, but there's no Wikipedia policy preventing articles on such topics where adequate sourcing is available. Alternative article names are problematic, because sources don't seem to clearly agree what sort of "Rothwell thing" (e.g. method, scale, system...) this is actually called. Titling it based on the standard number is neutral and uncontroversial; for the rest, redirects are cheap. I oppose a redirect to the products (such as incontinence pad), in part because this represents a very different level of technical depth than the broad-concept product articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 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 delete. Primarily per arguments by DGG and K.e.coffman. An interview is not a WP:RS, and WP:PORNBIO has not been met. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Dee

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

Fails pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources on Google[24] (Granted not all are perfect however notability looks to be there), Anyway has has won significant and notable awards, Meets PORNBIO #1 and #2 and meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more time: a raw GNews dump is of little value without identifying the quality hits with significant coverage. In the first page of results, Wales Online appears to be the only significant RS and that one can be considered primary. As for the awards, Urban X and NightMoves Award wins almost never establish PORNBIO #1 notability at AfD. Also, FAME Awards winners have been deleted at recent AfD debates. Minor roles in mainstream shows don't meet the "featured in" test for PORNBIO #2. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] - There's also Daily Star/Sun/Daily Mail sources which personally I'd use but hey ho, Anyway not all are perfect however coverage and notability is there, Well I disagree IMHO the awards are notable and thus she does meet PORNBIO, Anywho regardless of PORNBIO she certainly meets BASIC/GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here a summary of the 12 links you listed: 1. Addictivo365.com - pictorial; 2. Wales Online - already noted above; 3. NJ105.com - trivial mention; 4. Autoevolution.com - trivial mention; 5. Wales Online again - 4 sentences about a proposed TV documentary. Not distinct from link #2. 6. El Grafico - incidental mention; 7. Daily Star - not even mentioned, article is about Maria Osawa; 8. El Sol - A Saturday's Girl blurb; 9. Los Angeles Magazine - passing mention; 10. Houston Press - trivial mention; 11. Clizbeats.com - trivial mention; 12. AVN - listings in 2 republished press releases. Several passing mentions don't add up to significant coverage. I also suggest caution about using sources like The Daily Star. (Did you hear the one about the SAS sniper who took out the flamethrower-wielding ISIS executioner from a mile away?) Independent reliable source coverage appears to be pretty thin. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said not all are great however notability is there, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's close, but I think this scrapes by on GNG, whether or not the awards meet PORNBIO. I've taken two external links added by another editor after the AfD was filed (one from Los Angeles Magazine and one from Wales Online) and made them proper refs. They show that she's been covered in multiple, independent reliable sources beyond the porn press. David in DC (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the links above are not convincing, mostly being tabloid-like coverage. For example, Wales Online source is an interview, titled "Porn star Sophie Dee on golf, walking her dogs and coming back to Wales for fish and chips in the park with her dad". This is basically trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The purpose of PORNBIO is to compensate for the typically extensive coverage, usually i questionable sources. I see it as a deliberate limitation on the GNG in this area; as we have the right to make what guidelines we please and qhat exceptions we please, we have the right to make this special case if there is consensus,,and there has been. There was extensive discussion about this case, and the Special guideline has clear consensus. We should not be overriding it for an very borderline article like this--indeed, the dubious nature ofthe sources as discussed above shows the need for the special guideline. I recognize we might choose to over-ride it in a case with esecially strong ,edia coverage--but this is just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. The long list of stacked links above is most unimpressive. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This passage deserves to be immortalized from the "Walk Her Dogs" article being touted as a source counting towards GNG: In her free time, she has discovered a passion for golf, though she doesn’t yet have a handicap. “I can shoot 200 yards. I almost got a hole-in-one once. It was super close but the ball bounced out of the hole. It kind of counts.” Carrite (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they're not perfect and I have scrapped the barrel no doubt about it however there are a few indepth coverage in reliable sources so thus she does meet GNG although only by a bare inch. –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson (software)

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

Author removed PROD, product doesn't seem notable, google search only shows up some advertising, the rest is about SUSE studio. by ⚞Lil Johnny⚟ (t·c) on 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a new distribution sourced to its Sourceforge page and other user-submitted sites. No evidence of notability whether by WP:NSOFT, WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG and a message on the Talk page asking "what we need to do before a certain quantity of the people are recommended to this software project" misunderstands Wikipedia to be a promotional medium. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, not to promote, this software project is quite new and not to be expected for its tertiary sources anymore, or how can the project author help to get tertiary sources for this article thanks?202.40.211.131 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

202.40.211.131, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, only notable subjects go here, that's why the article is getting deleted. by ⚞Lil Johnny⚟ (t·c) on 07:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the tertiary sources, how to know if a software project is ‘‘notable’’ thanks?202.40.211.131 (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

202.40.211.131, I can't explain well, but This well-redacted policy can, also this one and this one. by ⚞Lil Johnny⚟ (t·c) on 07:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason you or the article creator want to continue this discussion, please do so in my talk page by ⚞Lil Johnny⚟ (t·c) on 08:03, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:G11 by Dlohcierekim (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jakari

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

No secondary sources found. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Blue Edits (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible A7+G11): A promotional WP:SPA biography by Jakari Jefferies expressing aspirations for a future career (awkwardly joined with claims to be humble). No credible claim to attained notability, hence potential for speedy deletion. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 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) 22:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Esposito

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could not find any sources that were non-routine coverage; appears to fail GNG. Well short of any current NHOCKEY criteria. Yosemiter (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Skemcraig (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soni Radovanović

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

A contested prod. Subject fails WP:RLN as has not played in the Super League or in a notable international competition. Mattlore (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as Fleets has found a new source indicating he meets RLN by playing in a European Cup. Mattlore (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Serbian captain who has featured numerous times for his country, captaining them in European fixtures against notable teams as well as numerous qualifying campaigns including World Cup Qualifiers. He has played professionally with Whitehaven.Fleets (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for these claims? Both the links in the article are dead. Mattlore (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehaven European Cup squad Serbian player of the year Serbia captain Fleets (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 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 Withdrawn per sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zelma Davis

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

Only sources are musicianguide.com (previously determined in other articles to be unreliable) and an Amazon link. Redirect to C+C Music Factory was undone. No reliable sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You haven't either bothered to try and find sources. Mind you, the goal of a Wikipedia user is to try and contribute to the page and not try to delete because it doesn't say what you want it to say. I'm about contribute to the article. There are many sources out there if you look for them and not take the easy way out by nominating an article for deletion. Horizonlove (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Horizonlove has added content that proves the page meets WP:PEOPLE; additionally, a quick Google comes up with several articles about her and her career. Hazarasp (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure this is a clear keep, but 155 hits in Newsbank, 98 in Lexis (half are false hits). I couldn't find any lengthy profiles of her--if anyone does, please add that--so I'm on the fence. But, she has received mentions in Rolling Stone, NPR, and most major newspapers in the U.S., etc. (mostly around the Martha Wash situation). Most importantly, for me, there are sources which suggest notability (e.g. Seattle Post-Intelligencer from 2015: "Zelma – Zelma nearly broke the Top 200 in 1902 but fell off the list in 1955...but Zelma is about to lose her grip on modern usage--though singer Zelma Davis gives the moniker a good name.") In terms of GNG notability, all signs point to yes. (I think an organized effort of including the artists in C+C Music Factory in that article and then redirecting could be the best for the content, but I'll leave that up to the involved editors: who hopefully remember to WP:AGF) AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which by the way, I'm still adding to page. I just needed to have a break because I was physically tired. But there is still more to come that I found out about her. Horizonlove (talk) 15:37, 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) 22:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indivised

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

I have been unable to find any information in independent published sources about this band. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing claimed in the article passes WP:NMUSIC, and no reliable source coverage exists to get them over WP:GNG in lieu. For added bonus, compare creator's username "Rysinnaeve" to the list of band members in the article, and promptly refer to WP:COI. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and likely self-promotion per Bearcat's point. --Lockley (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.K. Srivastava

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

Apart from the primary sources used as references in this article, the extensive puffery, and the fact that the subject himself appears to have been involved in editing it, I am uncertain this individual meets Wikipedia's notability requirements: the various awards noted appear to be from non-notable organizations (on which I could sometimes find little or no information on the Internet), the interviews do not appear to be from recognized reliable sources (those at knotlitmagazine.com I could not locate even using the Wayback Machine, one is a Youtube video, another comes from what might be a personal blog, etc.). Having written reviews of the works of others does not mean the subject himself warrants an article, and neither does having one's work included in an anthology. Links to some evidence of having received these awards, and evidence of the awards being from notable organizations, would go a long way towards satisfying a notability claim, but without these, the notability of the subject looks thin. KDS4444 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as I find the article to be both of low quality, and fails WP:BDD on several counts. I've haven't investigated the claim of WP:COI by an editor as was reported by KDS4444. Going to assume good faith there, and count that against it as well. -ZarosFlok (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sefin

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

This 'person' is either extremely obscure or didn't exist at all. The only books I find that name her are from a single self-published author, so she may be his invention, or she may just be such an obscure figure that nobody else finds her worth mentioning. Her claim to notability seems to fail WP:NOTINHERITED, being based solely on who her grandson was (or who it claims she was grandmother of). That the article states that "Nothing is known of her except her place in the genealogies" speaks volumes as to her lack of notability, and even this is debatable, as Bartrum's compendium of early Welsh genealogies fails to mention her.[37] She may be a moden invention created to link St. David genealogically to Brychan Brycheiniog, who is given as many almost 100 children in various sources and hence was a prime target for genealogical fabrication. I don't see how even an authentic Sefin could pass GNG, let alone a dubious one. Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this is a hoax, and a possible destination for a merger would be Brychan, but I don't think that is correct. Google book search finds a result for Llansefin (Welsh for the Church of Sefin) (which sources say may also be called Llansemin) on River Sefin (also known as Afon Brân)[38]. Llansemin is mentioned in histories of Brychan [39]. Perhaps some expert in orthography could find a cognate of Sefin or Semin or Sevin in the daughters of Brychan, but I don't see it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ -- Sevin would be an anglicised spelling of Sefin and Semin would be cognate. Llansemin is named in Th. Jones, A History of the County of Brecknock which is an older standard county history (and thus a reputable source). The author is clearly recounting something from some historical source. His footnote suggests this may be identified with Llansevin, which would now be spelt Llansefin, following the current trend for Welsh (rather than anglicised) orthography. He states this is in LLangattock, Cardiganshire. The article on Brychan cites a lot of irreconcilable genealogical sources. Neither the article on Saint Non, nor that on Saint David mention the relationship, though the sources on David's birth are from several hundred years later (not unusual). The only thing that comes up on a search for Llansevin is Plas Glansevin in LLANGADOG, CARMARTHENSHIRE, which may be the place Jones meant. The article currently has a stub tag, but clearly noting else is known (or knowable), so that the tag is an invite to OR. My reaction is either to leave well alone or delete. Not a WP hoax, but some kind of genealogical invention. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I think that was the proper conclusion of my previous contribution. The alternative might be to merge and redirect to Nonna, who was supposedly her daughter. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 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 keep. czar 22:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poison Pen (2014 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reviews in reliable sources such as The Chicago Reader here and Hollywood Reporter here, passes WP:GNG. The search term Poison Pen (2014 film) gives no results but there are relevant hits with Poison Pen (film) although they have to be picked out of a mass of google hits Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Atlantic306. Also found this by Film Ireland. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film fails all the criteria for NFILM even if there are reviews because criteria 1 states :"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". There are the 2 critics but I don't think it has been widely distributed all the reviews seem to be from festival showings. Domdeparis (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it does not have to meet the criteria of WP:NFILM if it passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what Atlantic306 said. WP:NFILM clearly states that WP:GNG is the primary guideline to follow, and the more specific guidelines at WP:NFILM are in addition to the general guideline, not its replacement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources identified above were the best I could find. It's not a lot of coverage, but enough to meet WP:GNG. gongshow talk 03:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews found by Atlantic306. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krum (Bulgarian singer)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. St0n3 BG (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: A very notable Bulgarian artist with a great number of hits spanning many years in Bulgaria and internationally. The article has some sources, although that could be improved. After nomination for deletion, I actually worked on providing additional references to establish more his notability. werldwayd (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and again nom has made several of these nominations which clearly are notable. This one is a particularly poor deletion nomination. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Vidal

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

The sources are either (a) publicity material or (b) IMDb.The article says that she starred in The Bold and Beautiful, Undisputed, Derailed, White Rush and Rica, Famosa, Latina. However, IMDb lists her as a star only in White Rush; and her appearances in the reality show Rica, Famosa, Latina have been as one member of an ensemble cast of 8-10 people. Nominated for two awards, but no wins.

A search turned up one additional source - a report in the Daily Mirror (a British tabloid newspaper) that a staged fight in Rica, Famosa, Latina got out of hand and ended in bloodshed.

Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO for lack of indepth reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abashokobezi 1906–2006

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NALBUM. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Got empty handed when searching for sources failing GNG and NALBUM. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Amazon.co.uk sells this album as a CD: Abashokobezi 1906–2006 in Amazon.co.uk , only they misspell the title. I actually bought my copy from them. –– Apanuugpak (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just existing doesn't make it notable. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed by a Swedish newspaper: Review in Svenska Dagbladet. — Apanuugpak (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is it? That lists many articles. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second one: Sydafrikanskt: “I skuggan av Mali och andra trender fortsätter Sydafrika att vara ett av Afrikas största musikländer. Alla album nedan kan köpas på den oerhört välsorterade sajten www.oneworld.co.za. På www.amazon.co.uk hittar man också många av skivorna. — — 2. Bambata: Abashokobezi (1906-2006)(Gallo): “Ett oerhört pretentiöst album att döma av titeln och vad som går att läsa om det. Om man som jag saknar kunskaper i de flesta afrikanska språk återstår det pop och jazzig zuluhiphop med en del traditionella instrument. Förvånande bra även utan berättelse.”

Translation: “South African: In the shadow of Mali and other trends, South Africa continues to be one of Africa’s biggest countries for music. All albums below can be purchased on the extremely well-stocked site www.oneworld.co.za. At www.amazon.co.uk you will also find many of the discs. — — 2. Bambata: Abashokobezi (1906–2006) (Gallo): An incredibly pretentious album to judge by the title and what can be read about it. If, like me, you lack knowledge of most African languages, this is still pop and jazzy zuluhiphop with some traditional instruments. Surprisingly good even without story.” — Apanuugpak (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please find a second quote with reference now added to the article. — Apanuugpak (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth reference added. — Apanuugpak (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the link I gave before did indeed go somewhere else. Hope this one works better: Svenska Dagbladet link — Apanuugpak (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilislav

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. St0n3 BG (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very notable and popular artist in Bulgarian folk. Article is extremely well referenced. werldwayd (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very popular how? His most viewed music video has only 834k views currently, which is very low even by Bulgarian standards. He never charted. I never see news articles about him. Despite the well written article, he's a nobody. St0n3 BG (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A youtube video being viewed by more than 10% of a country's population is something. – Uanfala 09:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep @St0n3 BG: are you doing any searches actually in Bulgarian before making these nominations? Clearly notable In ictu oculi (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The numerous sources in the article demonstrate a fair amount of non-trivial coverage. – Uanfala 09:55, 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobadilla railway station

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

Non-notable rail station in small town. As per WP:STATION, does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historically important in understanding how the contruction of the line was used and is still used and connected to the surrounding areas, maybe read more on it before deleting Onel5969, without discussing first seems illogical, I have added a citation as there was indeed none, which is why you deleted the article (according to the talk section of the article). This station forms part of the Algeciras-Bobadilla railway line and is historically connected to the Algeciras Gibraltar Railway Company --Rockysantos (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per wp:station "It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article. " It seems like it's up to editorial judgement... I'll !vote for a separate article if it grows beyond a stub, otherwise a merge is fine by me MrBrug (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is capable of being expanded from sources in the Spanish Wikipedia article. Needing improvement is never a reason for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a real mainline station. As noted above, Spanish WP has a host of coverage, generally from government sources. As with most stations this is expected. WP wisely decided long ago rail stations are worthy of articles and this prevents the exhausting fleshing out of the notability of the tens of thousands of such articles when editors time can and should be better spent improving existing articles and created new ones of worthy topics. --Oakshade (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Nördic Nightfury 16:22, 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. So Why 06:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nayan Raina

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

Not a notable personality. Fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Coderzombie (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article sourced to routine announcement/blog coverage. No evidence provided or found which could indicate attained encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blog and primary sources don't establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Hello, sir can you please let me know how the article meets/violates policy???? he is a notable personality. he also discovered by American Radio Personality Bryant Corbitt who is the Program Director at KMX Radio 106.7 and KISS Fm 104.7 and i updated Categories, added new references from valuable resources, linked page internally to cover orphan tag.. XxModeGamerxX (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating the page, you should have read the notability guidelines, particularly, WP:MUSICBIO. "Discovered by program director" is not enough to be notable. Coderzombie (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: i know im new here but i listen his music butter video. and i loved it. so you guys should keep it :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.66.134 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP address, but that's not how it works in Wikipedia. Coderzombie (talk) 05:00, 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 delete. As usual, I'm happy to provide a copy of the article to anyone who wishes to work on it. So Why 06:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Gildersleeve

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough independent sources to show the notability. Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 11:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her roles in Sugar Daddies[40] and All My Children might meet WP:NACTOR #1, but she has no WP:GNG-worthy coverage outside of very minor local newspapers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 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 keep. So Why 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super Burnout

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

Contested WP: PROD. No reason was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my rationale from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. The article gives no indication of importance, and of the four cited sources, two are simple database information from the same fan site, and two are fan discussion forums. Martin IIIa (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: MobyGames lists 12 reviews for this game including ones from reliable sources such as GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly: [41] --Mika1h (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mika1h. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the review publications listed at MobyGames qualify as notable/reliable sources; of that list of 12, I count only five that could be added to the article, and that's assuming all the reviews actually exist (MobyGames uses user-generated content). Moreover, as I've said before at AfD, 1990s GamePro reviews don't help establish notability, since at that time GamePro reviewed every single game that was released in North America. Finally, to back away for a moment from the tallying of reviews, Super Burnout is one of the most obscure games on one of the most obscure consoles ever released. It was released in minuscule quantities, got a few mediocre reviews, and disappeared without being noticed by anyone outside the hardcore gaming community. It seems a poor basis for an article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd contest the idea that this game is entirely unnotable; I'm currently doing an article for E3 1995, and several contemporary outlets reported on it at the time. Additionally, the existence of print media discussing this game, even if not immediately available, means this article is very likely notable and merely lacking proper citations. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Atari Jaguar games as useful search term. I'd only "keep" this if someone has actual proof of sourcing, as right now it has none. Martin's right on MobyGames—most of those 12 are unreliable sources. If the GamePro review is a few sentences and the other sources (EGM, Video Games, Game Players) are only in physical magazine archives, we have no content with which to write an article and cannot fulfill WP:V. Mentions in passing in E3 1995 write-ups has the same issue. Show some actual sourcing and I'd be happy to change my mind, but faith that the content surely must exist somewhere is an argument to avoid. czar 22:17, 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 delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheri Elizabeth

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

Non notable designer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced to primary and passing mentions. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in independent reliable sources[42] [43] [44] = passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1, thehypemagazine is a PR platform, not an independent source, source is just subject talking about herself, not independent coverage. 2, source is just subject talking about herself, not independent coverage. 3, just a few passing mentions, no depth of coverage, not a reliable source (from their about us, "Let us tell your story. We offer the following media teams that can help your business:"). duffbeerforme (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources giving extensive coverage are Facebook or personal websites, which is not a RS for anything at all, let alone notability. Some of the other sources are quite literally just photographs of one or another of her dresses (like #2 or #5) or mentions not even amounting to a single sentence (like #3 or #12). I am at a losssto explain how the 6 words in #3 can possibly be readas significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources available don't establish notability. I'm not seeing expansion of the page solving its issues, nor do I see opportunities for a merger. -ZarosFlok (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

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

Pharmaceutical company with no evidence of notability. Sources are all own web-site or simple directory and share price listings. Nothing independent and reliable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals is a WP:LISTED company on the National Stock Exchange of India and Bombay Stock Exchange. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- a listed company with $1.2bln in annual revenues. I'm not finding much in depth coverage but the article could be useful if the company gets embroiled in some sort of scandal :-) . It's not terribly promotional at this point; otherwise, I'd be voting delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a pharmacist, I think this company has a notability. --محمود (talk) 22:36, 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 00:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be notable. But the only statement in the article with an external source is their stock price. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. The article is poor but the topic is notable. Here is a Google Book reference referring to their growth strategy and there are other references such as this and this as well which are enough to establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a passing mention of drug discovery work they did on TRPA1. Not relevant to an N discussion. The book about the growth strateiges of indian pharma companies is in exactly one library. You provide no justification to keep this article. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per GNews search.~ d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence(

Also not a valid !keep vote. GNews is full of garbage. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep. i cleaned it up, removing SPS garbage and adding content based on independent sources in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing, presumably after cleanup. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nas Daily

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

A number of well-versed editors have now attempted to edit this page down into something that doesn't violate WP:BLP and we have ended up with this article, even after looking for sources and giving the original author a lot of time to edit the page. I don't doubt that there is a WP:COI here with comments in the original edit, such as Includes a list of some of the top press releases, interviews, etc. about Nas and his videos? Shit that will make him look super famous. Bollywood movie. Commercial for Fuze D. People whose videos he collaborates on or shows up in???. Although AfD is supposed to disregard such problems, and look at the article itself in the present state, I think it still needs to be taken into consideration. This is an article created by a WP:SPA WP:PAID user using a small number of references that don't really meet the WP:BIO requirements hence the AfD. The promo material has been removed, and so I would like to propose deletion or alternatively moving this to draft so it can go through WP:AfC rather than skirt various Wiki rules. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 01:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there are sufficient sources on this person that it is worthwhile to keep this article. This person does appear to have a consistently significant amount of likes and views on his Facebook page as well as at least four independent sources talking about them and only them. While it might need to be reformed, it is worth keeping in the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williambellwisdo (talk • contribs) 03:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Per nom, I don't think his likes and a couple of fluff articles are enough to outweigh the skeletal nature of the article and its seeming origins as a WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:18, 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 no consensus.

The first three delete !votes (including nom) fail to explain why redirecting/merging per WP:ATD is not a feasible way to go, so I'm weighting these lower. Sandstein's later lone delete !vote also fails to address Kudpung's redirect suggestion but their !vote cannot be interpreted as being against redirecting (after deletion).

The rest of the discussion is split between keeping the article as it is or redirecting/merging it to the town the school it is in. While WP:NHS is an essay, it is one that enjoys widespread support, so arguments cannot be discounted based solely because they cite an essay. As such, there is - despite a relist - no consensus at this time. A merge/redirect can always be discussed at the talk page or via WP:PM. Regards So Why 06:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Girls' National School Matale

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

Not notable article of this page. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 02:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom - Google had ~2k results, the majority of which (on the first few pages) were either student pages or something relating to the school's facebook page. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williambellwisdo (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clearly fails to meet GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its locality as per long standing procedure for nn schools. FYI: @Cyrus noto3at bulaga, Williambellwisdo, and PohranicniStraze:, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per WP:NHS, secondary schools are generally kept. The school is known by several names: Amina Girls College, Amina M.V., Amina Balika Vidyalaya, Amina Maha Vidyalaya, Amina Muslim Vidyalaya.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Obi2canibe as per WP:NHS the article should still met a basic level of WP:GNG. I've tried to find reliable independent sources, even using the links above (mainly Facebook and mentions in passing). I concur the school exists even though there is an issue with what is its formal name. Are there any other local sources or sources in Sinhalese that support WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: You'd be hard pressed to find "significant coverage" of most Sri Lankan schools. Here are are a couple reliable sources which mention the school, albeit not in detail: Daily News; Sunday Times. This source from the Ministry of Education gives the school's name as "Amina Balika Vidyalaya" and shows it to be a national school and type 1AB (schools which offer arts, science and commerce Advanced Level courses). The latest school census shows less than 4% of Sri Lankan schools are classified as "national schools" and less than 10% are type 1AB. So it seems this school is one of the "top" schools in Sri Lanka. The lack of coverage may be due to the demographics of its students - Muslim girls.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NHS clearly states (in respect to high schools) "we do not delete an article because editors have not yet cited their sources, but only if there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources exist. In the isolated instances where such schools have been deleted at WP:AfD, editors were commonly unable to independently verify much more than the school's existence." Dan arndt (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The much-cited RfD did not undermine this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NHS. Dan arndt (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as degree-awarding is sufficient for notability claims, regardless of any fixable concerns and the current information is enough, at that. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All articles require substantial third-party sources per WP:GNG. The ones in this article only confirm the school's existence. WP:NHS is an essay and therefore not relevant. Sandstein 21:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. all articles require sources for verifiability. Anything beyond that is a guideline that requires discretion. We are by and large still following the practice that degree granting secondary schools should be considered notable, if only to avoid these 100s of discussions. I would take those arguing for deletion of these articles more seriously if they tried to delete ones in areas where it could realistically be claimed that the failure of us to find sources indicate that there are none to be found. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All articles require secondary sources to avoid being original research as well. The burden is on those who wish to keep an article (aside from the preliminary search). --Izno (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge/Redierct to Matale; as per user Kudpung. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like WP:BEFORE is satisfied, above. Neither NHS nor OUTCOMES are policy nor guideline--arguments appealing to them should be weighted appropriately by the closing administrator. Redirect per Kudpung (a delete or a delete and redirect are also reasonable outcomes for me). --Izno (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Matale as failing WP:GNG. We only appear to have sources to support a single sentence confirming the school's existence here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dedimunda deviyo

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

An unsourced Sinhalese god. The content fails WP:V, and the god possibly fails WP:N.

This article has been tagged as unsourced since 2012, for some five years. It's therefore unlikely that better sources will appear soon. A Google Books search does show references to a deity named Dedimunda, but apparently more in the way of passing mentions; judging from that, this seems to be a minor deity or perhaps an aspect of some other god.

In any case, we'd need an expert to rewrite the article; the present content is a POV essay written from the "in-universe" perspective of a believer. I recommend deletion without prejudice to a competent, sourced rewrite from scratch, if that is possible. More likely this topic is better covered in an overview article about Sinhalese religion, but lacking sources, we can't merge any of this content. Sandstein 11:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about the traditional Sri Lankan god called Dedimunda deviyo and there is still possibility to develop the article. So rather than deleting the article, it should be more developed. However the previous title (Śrī Deḍimuṇḍa Deviyo) isn't used in conventional pronunciation. So I moved the article title to the current name Dedimunda deviyo.--L Manju (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A popular deity in many parts of Sri Lanka. Falls within the scope of WP:Mythology. SWR2.9 (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at the edit history and I noticed a user has added sources and more information to the page, they have also added an image to it as well. As a result of that, I believe it should be kept. (120.144.166.4 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note I just noticed the user who made the edits, commented above. I agree with their argument on developing the page. (120.144.166.4 (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mduvekot (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles-Joseph de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace

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

I've made an attempt at fixing the article, but it is so riddled with errors, half-finished translations and inaccuracies that I give up. The title doesn't match the subject, important claims are unsourced and sources fail verification. Delete per WP:TNT. Mduvekot (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Charles-Alexandre de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace so that title matches subject. The rest (poor English, poorly formatted source references)I think I've already taken care of.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I think that Charles-Alexandre de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace or Charles Alexandre Marc Marcelin de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace, prince of Henin or Charles Alexandre Marc Marcellin d’Alsace is not the same person as Charles-Joseph de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace. But if you think you can fix it, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Good luck. Mduvekot (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only halfway reliable source for the "Charles-Joseph" name that I've found is the description of the portrait sold at Christie's, and all the biographical details there fit the man elsewhere referred to as "Charles-Alexandre". Might fall foul of WP:SYNTH, but deleting the portrait from the article should fix that. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been nominated way too fast. --Carolus (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mduvekot can be faulted for opening a deletion discussion a week after the article was created, when it has different names in title and lead, and the source references were not very clear. Rather than the timing, we should focus on the current state of the article. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a single ref to confirm the subject existed, this could be a hoax. Sourcing is terrible. I support WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You acuse me of creating hoax? Do i understand you right?--Carolus (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet there are half a dozen references in the article itself that would enable you to confirm the subject existed. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Of course he existed, we're just not sure about his identity and I didn't think it likely that we would be able to unambiguously determine who was who for lack of contemporary scholarship that we should not, because it would constitute original research, be doing ourselves using primary sources. Take the citation from Réimpression de l'Ancien Moniteur depuis la réunion des Etats-Généraux jusqu'au Consulat, Mai 1789 - Novembre 1799, vol. 20 (Paris, 1841), p. 192. for example, which reads "C.-A.-M.-C. d'Alsace de Bossu de Chimay, âgé de cinquante ans, né à Bruxelles, ex-prince d'Hénin, ex-capitaine des ci-devant gardes d'infâme d'Artois;" The dates match, 50 years old on 19 Messidor of the year 2. That's July 7 of 1794. So it's very likely the same guy. But the initials C.-A.-M.-C. match neither Charles Alexandre Marc Marcelin, nor Charles-Joseph. Same person? Probably. Do we know what his name was? Hardly. Carolus has a bit of a history of coming up with his own ideosyncratic names, anglicizing, or gallicizing or latinizing them (ask me if you really want the details) and that leads to articles that are so confused that in my opinion, we're better off without them. Like I said, if it can be fixed, I'll withdraw the nomination. Mduvekot (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought we only counted newspaper reports as primary sources if they were interviews with the subject? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that what Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary, secondary and_tertiary sources says. Mduvekot (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It says that mainstream newspapers are among the most reliable sources. As far as that goes we're in the clear for using the Moniteur for details of the conviction. The identity of this victim (former prince of Hénin, former captain of the royal guard) as the subject of the article is given in what is clearly a secondary source: the editor's footnote to an edition of his mistress's memoirs. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Victim? He was found guilty in a court of justice and sentenced to death. Anyway, someone whose name we can't quite agree on clearly existed and did things that likely meet our notability guidelines. This is not a matter that belongs at AfD anymore. I'll withdraw the nomination. Give me a moment to wrap that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Revolutionary tribunal of the Terror - not exactly the sort of place you'd expect a fair trial! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:52, 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 and redirect to Cartoonito. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoonito (Italy)

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

Non notable TV channel, Fails TV & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Cartoonito Nothing more to elaborate on; this is basically the same as the UK original, except in Italian. We even have the Italian cable positions in the latter already. Nate • (chatter) 04:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Also suggest redirect to Cartoonito, as suggested by User:Mrschimpf. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, being merely a list of programs aired on the channel.TH1980 (talk) 01:17, 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.

[1] ttps://www.mrsinternational.com/mrs-international-pageant.php#A

[2] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=zunera+mazhar

[3] ttps://www.upwork.com/o/jobs/browse/?q=wikipedia

[Google_Search_1900-4] "voldemort origins of the heir j k rowling". Google Search. 1900-03-17. Retrieved 2017-06-05.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]