Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 May 17 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Anthony Harwit[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The lone secondary source provides next to no information about Harwit. All the others are his own blog, social media, plus one page where he talks about himself - none of those are independent, and they don't help establish notability nor improve an article whose content is blatantly promotional. Huon (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lishan Bus[edit]

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

Non notable bus manufacturer - Fails BASIC/GNG –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lishan is a notable bus builder of size in China. It has it's own Chinese wikipedia page [1]. Scoty6776 (talk)
  • Yet, if you look at the Chinese WP page, although it has a little more information, it is just as devoid of sources as this one. -- HighKing++ 17:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bus manufacturer having an article on another project is irrelevant here - As noted by HighKing the Chinese article is just as bad as this one however all projects have different standards so I shan't comment on the fact that that Chinese article is still up!. –Davey2010Talk 17:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The absence of any sources makes it impossible to !vote any other way. If sources turn up, I'll be glad to reconsider though. Right now, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing++ 17:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  14:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keppel Gate, Isle of Man[edit]

Keppel Gate, Isle of Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable location. The topic is covered adequately in a table row at List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Keppel Gate. I created that list-article to help address drama about multiple articles that was going on during 2015. The area has settled down, and this is cleanup. Non-notability of Keppel Gate was discussed already at Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#AFDs or otherwise deal with marginal articles on named corners. There is no substantial content in the article which cannot be included in one or two sentences in the table row. I prefer a "Delete" decision to get rid of all the garbage, although later a redirect to the table row may be created (and I don't mind a "Redirect" outcome instead). (Please see related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Milestone (2nd nomination)). --doncram 15:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I hate it when other editors delete content then nominate the reduced article for AFD, but it happens that I did just that, by my reverting an edit that both added and subtracted material. So to be fair, please see this recent version with its "Area of Specific Scientific Interest" section. I frankly am skeptical that the off-line source actually mentions Keppel Gate, given a previous dispute about what an off-line source supposedly said about another moor area, with respect to Windy Corner, Isle of Man. That dispute was resolved by my getting a copy of it (see Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#February 2015 edits, which re-confirmed deletion / merger of that article). If in fact there is a genuine "Area of Specific Scientific Interest" near to the road turn, then it should more naturally be covered in a list-article on such areas in the Isle of Man. I suspect there is no interest in actually covering such areas in Wikipedia; rather the battle is to trump up supposedly related content in order to defend at all costs any TT racing-topic article. --doncram 15:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ASSI stuff seems to be online here: PDF. I'm guessing that the citation is referring to the stuff on page 108, but it definitely doesn't mention Keppel Gate, and my knowledge of the Isle of Man isn't good enough to be sure that Keppel Gate would be in the area listed. Harrias talk 10:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GEOLAND being a notable named feature. The page already has plenty of sourced detail and it's easy to find more such as the 1881 Tourist's picturesque guide to the Isle of Man, "The ascent from Douglas to the Keppel Gate is interesting in the extreme. It commands a magnificent view of Douglas and of the southern portions of the islands, and on the east of parts of the parish of Lonan; while from the Keppel Gate...". Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your quote sounds interesting, IF it goes on to say something about Keppel Gate after the ellipsis. While from the Keppel Gate, what? But with all due respect, meaning this quite sincerely, what is there to say about Keppel Gate, that you would keep from the article or that you would add? It does not need to be stated that it is in between the 4th and 5th mile markers of some road, which is tagged "ambiguous" in the article, anyhow. Its location is that it is at 33.79 miles into the TT course, as already stated in the List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Keppel Gate, and coordinates are given for it. In the current article, I would delete all mention of "Slieau Ree" and its etymology, which is not about Keppel Gate. The sections titled "A18 Snaefell Mountain Road" and "Motor sport heritage" are not about Keppel gate, and should be deleted. The section "Origin of the name Keppel Gate" is excessive, but a summary sentence or possibly two could be added to the table row if you like that content. I would delete the "Road safety" section; it is not important to tell the world that the roadway was resurfaced in 2006-2007. In summary, I am okay with merging a sentence or two about the Keppel Gate name to the table row. It is extremely late in the day, given contention running for several years, to be asserting there is valid content to add to the article. The article creator has tried to create/add content, but has in my view failed. User:Andrew Davidson, if you can/will add substantial content, please do so now.
  • Another reason to delete this article (or to agree that it shall not exist as a separate article, but be merged/redirected) is to end the longrunning contention at the article, in which garbage content is added periodically, and then deleted. By the way, the only interesting thing to say about the Keppel Gate (sourced anecdote about there having been a livestock gate, and the first rider opening it and the last rider having to close it, in long-ago racing) is included in its table row, but not in the current table, because the article creator contends against it and removes it. If this AFD does not approve deletion or merger, then I expect what would happen is that I and/or editor User:Rocknrollmancer would get around to cutting it down to one or two sentences, and it would beg the question why should this be a separate article. I suppose there could be a formal merger proposal at the article, in order to ratify the elimination of the article by a different process than AFD, and probably Rocknrollmancer and I and User:Agljones would be the only persons commenting. I am asking for other editors to pass the judgment that there is nothing of merit here, or at least not more than is already covered in the list-table's row about it. The purpose of the AFD is to get somewhat wider approval of the decision to eliminate the article, so that the article creator will not feel they are being unfairly treated. --doncram 20:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no issue of nobility WP:N or issue in respect to article length as shown by the article reversion by editor User:doncram [2] made 30 minutes before making the article deletion nomination. The same article revision confirms that the ASSI areas listed in the bone-fide reference confirmed by User:Harrias relates correctly to the article and also confirmed by this edit [3] by the same editor. Deletion in the same revision by the editor User:doncram of the Isle of Man TT references confirms that there may be no reason to redirect the article. The Kershaw article refers to a gate on "Snaefell Mountain" which fails the criteria for independent notability WP:N and it is well established that the Scandinavian word "gata" means a road or pathway and not a gate. The Kershaw article is further contradicted by the author Stenning and the Mountain Shepherd Rhodes Tate and is also an example of Circular reporting and Confirmation bias.

The article relates to an area of Common land in the Isle of Man and also one of three purpose built sections of the A18 road created in the late nineteenth century. The article also relates to one of four areas of the main A18 road extensively modified in the in 1920’s for the Isle of Man TT races. The article passes the Georoad criteria as the area is occupied WP:GEOROAD. The article relates to the significant purchase of Common land from a feudal land-owner in the nineteenth century and to Scandinavian place names found in the Isle of Man and the same type of Scandinavian place-name can also be found in parts of Northern England. The area in the article has significant post-glacial features which relates to the etymology of the area and relates to another similar article, but this other article not nominated for deletion (?) The area of Keppel Gate has connections to Isle of Man folk-lore and is also an ancient right of way.

The article List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course has no citation for independent notability WP:N and the same non-list article has major issues with copyright and image infringements, made up sections WP:MADEUP without independent verifiability WP:V. During the same discussion about copyright issues another editor [4] may have defined this Keppel Gate article for deletion and the Windy Corner article as “historical notable place-names” which is collaborated by primary, secondary and tertiary sources which is acceptable by Wikipedia WP:PRIMARY. As the non-list article has no independent nobility (and unlikely ever to do so) redirection of the Keppel Gate article or any other article as a “ historical notable place-names” would be a synthesis of sources WP:SYN (confirmed by the tagging of citations in the article revision of 14:31, 29 April 2017 [5] by the editor User:doncram) and another possible major copyright infringement WP:COPY.
agljones(talk)19:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. The original author is willfully ignorant about copyright and about standalone list-articles and more, despite lots being explained to them time and again. --doncram 20:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I opened this AFD. Editor User:Harrias corroborated above that the material in the article about an Area of Special Scientific Interest is bogus, which tends toward supporting deletion, although they didn't vote explicitly. Editor User:Andrew Davidson voted Keep but did not reply to comment/question, i wish they would. Otherwise there is just the original author's Keep vote. Since the AFD opened, the original author has added material about the ASSI to the article, and I have deleted it, and they added it and possibly more again, and I just deleted it again. I would appreciate deletion to end the cycle. I hope some more editors could see their way to commenting here, and/or for a closer to really consider the merits of the situation and not simply go with the majority of votes (2:1 against me i guess) so far. If the article is retained by "Keep" or "No consensus" then I do expect I will edit it down to one sentence and expect to go on battling forever with the original author. :( Or maybe I could come up with a bunch of negative tags to post on the article to make it an awful experience for readers, and just maintain those forever. Argh. I would appreciate some help to just get rid of this, instead. --doncram 20:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Keppel Gate article refers to a “historical notable place-names” as a substantial area of common land of cultural, scientific and historic interest purchased from a former feudal landowner. Also, the later road built in the period 1864-1869 and then later modified in 1922 was significantly also one of perhaps three significant purpose built section of the A18 road as the principal and main thoroughfare in the Isle of Man used for different types of motor sport events since 1903. There is no issue of notability WP:N or article length as shown by repeated vandalism and article revisions by the editor User:doncram and the burden of proof lies with any editor adding or removing text WP:BURDEN which has not been demonstrated.

Redirection to the list-article represents content forking WP:CFORK and reverse spin-out. Also a list-article should not be used as a repository for citations that would not be considered in a stand-alone article due to issues of notability or verifiability WP:N, WP:V . The list-article still has no citation for independent notability WP:N (citation unlikely ever to be found) is incorrectly titled and still has major copyright issues as shown by this confirmation by the User:doncram in this edit of 21:58, 15 February 2017 [6]. Inclusion in the list-article would represent synthesis WP:SYN of sources not permitted by Wikipedia and the term "Snaefell Mountain Course" is a contemporary local historic newspaper term for the Highroads Course.

With this reverted edit [7] of 16:58, 23 May 2016 editor User:doncram has used this text in respect to moorland;- “The left-hander in the direction of the TT course demarks the start of the steep descent off the Mountain towards the finish line in Douglas a few miles away, and the transition from moorland grazing to arable farmland at a lower altitude.” The editor User:doncram has never historically given an alternative explanation or definition for the heath and heather moorland, despite the numerous references in secondary sources.agljones(talk)07:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adequately covered in Snaefell Mountain Course, not enough for independent notability, despite the plethora of offered sources. Many are mere repeats and the vast majority are mere passing mentions. Nothing in WP:GEOLAND applies to named corners of a racecourse and linking to essentially similar same racecourse descriptions from multiple years is nearly deceptive. The attempted inclusion of Keppel Gate as an Area of Special Scientific Interest is pure WP:OR. Larding the article with mulitple poor sources does nothing to demonstrate actual independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is no issue of Original research WP:OR as the bona fida reference was identified by the User:Harrias in respect to the Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI). There is no issue of synthesis WP:SYN as the report identified by editor User:Harrias is completely self-contained and heath, heathland and heather moorland in the British Isles (including Ireland and the Isle of Man) has been identified of being of scientific interest by the European Community. The term in British-English is “moorland” and Wikipedia does not permit ‘edit-warring’ over differences in style. The area of former Crown Common land of Keppel Gate is within the upland Mountain Lands (an Area of Special Scientific Interest which can be located on an 'appropriate map' a process permitted by Wikipedia WP:PRIMARY) representing 29 percent by area of the “semi-natural habit” (including the heather moorland) of the Isle of Man. The conservation “hot-spot” as a slightly separate issue are identified by map references. This includes the description of “Kate’s Cottage” which as recently as April 2017 was described as “Kate’s Cottage, Keppel Gate, Onchan” in an Isle of Man Newspaper due to an ongoing legal dispute over land.

The area of Keppel Gate is one of a number of “historical notable place-names” and passes Georoad due to the sale of the land from the former feudal landowner due to the UK Disafforesting Commission of 1860 and “Keppel Gate” is repeatedly described in the sale of land catalogue of 1863. The notability of the article WP:N is not defined by Georoad as a place on the “racecourse” as this was not built until 1922 which was 59 years after the land sale and 56 years after the replacement road was initially constructed. Previously road construction in the Isle of Man in the Isle of Man had evolved over a period of 200 years rather than building new roads. The A18 road was a strategic initiative to improve road communications and ‘Keppel Gate’ was one of perhaps three purpose built sections to join-up existing mountain cart-tracks. During the initial period of racing cars and motor-cycles (1904-1921), competitors were diverted on to mountain tracks for various different reasons away from the normal route of the A18 road and this included Keppel Gate.

The main Snaefell Mountain Course article is not adequate as it need to be renamed and only refers to removal of fence posts at Keppel Gate in 1922. This article would be renamed and rewritten to take into account to the major reconstruction work in 1922 (including Keppel Gate) that had to be undertaken to prevent the Isle of Man TT Races being moved to Belgium. It is not possible to carry out the rewrite and include the new information due to issues content forking and spin-out due to the existing a differently named non-list article which is used as a receptacle for information which does not pass the process of independent verifiability WP:V. agljones(talk)09:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 22:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Romero-Abreu[edit]

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

I can see nothing here about notability. He is a trustee, a past president etc, etc. His company's press releases get published in respectable publications but nothing here shows any notability for the individual either in English or Spanish. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:GNG. Article reads as a resumé and doesn't establish notability above and beyond having positions at various companies throughout his working career. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disregarding the IP's vote partly because of the sockpuppetry concerns and partly because notability on Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources, something their arguments do not address Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund W. Pendleton[edit]

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

BLP consisting entirely of original research. All references are primary sources, including the subject's own pilot logbook and college transcripts. Notability concerns raised on Talk by IP when page first created, but were never pursued or addressed. User:EPendleton's sole act on Wikipedia was to create this page. Agricolae (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person, Edmund W. Pendleton, is notable because he was a prime force in the X-53 program, an important and successful aeronautical research program. Without his technical contributions and management, this program would never have occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.29.10.127 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the basis for this claim? What secondary source attributes to him such importance (enough that he merits his own page, rather than just mention on the Boeing X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing page)? Agricolae (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legitimate biography of an individual working on significant research activities that have pushed the state-of-the-art in aerospace science. It has historical significance. User:T.M.Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.33.78 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Administrator this appears to be a duplicate 'vote'. IP 98.29.10.127, who left the unsigned 'vote' above, also placed a 'vote' on Talk:Edmund W. Pendleton here [8] that they signed "Terry M. Harris". Now IP 132.3.33.78 is voting, signing here as (non-existant) User:T.M.Harris. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. borderline notability, and written as a promotional memoir, the sort that usually turns out to be a copyvio. a safe working rule is that articles referering to their subjects by the first name are very likely to be inherently promotional , unless the subject is a popular entertainer. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too much promotionalism, use of primary sources, and generally a failure to show meeting the notability requirements of academics or to show anything approaching GNG notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Program managers and chief engineers are carefully vetted for Air Force demonstration programs. They are qualified and selected in part on the basis of notable engineering and research achievements in their field of specialization. This bio exposes breadth and depth of training, education, and experience gained by opportunities only possible through working for the Air Force. Very few people have this background. Article is well enough written. User: Chuck from Springfield — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.33.80 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Administrator This is the second comment on this AfD made by an IP editor who signed with a bogus user name.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly given that the IP range 132.3.33.78-81 appears to be used interchangeably by a single editor of the page,  Looks like a duck to me. Sock/meat puppetry seems likely. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a different IP has been used to blank the page then removed the AfD template, with edit summaries of: "Content removed by primary author. No longer wish to be attacked by trolls. Thank You" and "Please delete all content. Primary author no longer wants name associated with Wiki due to attach by trolls". Actions have been reverted as per explicit statement in AfD template not to do these things. (And if the IP and/or subject is following here, the decision on whether a page is deleted from the project will depend on the outcome of this discussion regarding the notability of the subject, not on the personal desires of either a single editor nor the article's subject.) Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirects at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military equipment of Yemen[edit]

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

The article is from a single source. The topic feels inherently non-encyclopedic in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a copy/paste of one single source. Ajf773 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural keep. Way too soon after the prev. AfD. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hunter-Clarke[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Paulharding150, per their request at WT:AFD. The rationale they posted is included verbatim below. Relevant criteria include WP:NPOLITICIAN, though the subject's involvement in the recent EU Referendum doesn't exactly fit the usual categories of notability for politicians. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to nominate this as an AFD: Robin Hunter-Clarke. I fail to see what point it serves, I have removed a lot of waffle/gossip, he may have held a senior role in the leave campaign, but that was only for a few months and that isn't the sort of thing anyone is going to look up. He's currently an assistant for an opposition Assembly Member and a UKIP election candidate - does that merit a page here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulharding150 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep A well-attended AfD on this politician was closed as Keep by a highly regarded administrator less than 3 months ago and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Hunter-Clark is a member of a controversial political party, which makes this rush to overturn that AfD suspect. (I weighed in at the AfD and sourced article during the AfD; I do that sort of WP:HEYMANN upgrade regularly) But what truly ought to have raised red flags is that the request was made by an editor who admits to having just removed a large amount of material from the article. User:Ultraexactzz, I hope you will reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree, and would not object to a procedural close. I completed the steps here per WP:AGF at the nominator's request, when their malformed AFD tag popped at WP:BADAFD. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I did say I'd removed 'a lot' if you look at what I actually removed it was around 2% of the article - which was unsuited to Wikipedia.I wold ask you to reconsider given that no one is going to look this person up - mainly because he is not linked from any pages other than the seats he has stood in - he is not even linked from the Vote Leave article. Paulharding150 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep per E.M.Gregory. Lepricavark (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: Too soon after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hunter-Clarke (2nd nomination). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. I'm certainly not seeing genuinely compelling evidence of notability, and would most likely have voted to delete if I'd participated in the February discussion at all — but what I'm not seeing presented here is any new evidence of non-notability that wasn't already taken into account in February. I don't always agree with where consensus lands either, but my responsibility as a Wikipedian is to abide by consensus whether I agree with it or not, and to present a much more thoroughly reasoned case for reconsideration if I feel strongly enough to shoot for a consensus can change test (which I have to admit that I don't here.) So if there were a compelling new reason to reopen this just three months after a clear keep, then I'd be willing to hear it out — but if we're just going to rehash the same arguments as last time with nothing new being brought to the table, then we should wait for at least three more months before trying. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjarzai[edit]

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

There's still no sources nor evidence of meeting notability guidelines. The previous AfD should have been treated like a PROD and been deleted, but let's take care of this now. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Charles Llewelyn[edit]

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

Article is principally an obituary (the issue being WP:NOTOBITUARY). References consist of an obituary from the Telegraph and an article from a personal blog. It looks like he was awarded the Cross of St. Augustine in 1998, but there is no indication that this award is selective/ competitive and therefore it is probably not a good measure of actual notability. Having published a series of "Daily Readings" is not enough to make a notability claim. A Google search turns up only 11 hits on his name, and most of these are reiterations of his obituary. KDS4444 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The decision as to whether or not to delete this article is of course entirely a matter to be decided in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

I would mention two things. First, Robert Charles Llewelyn did not just publish daily readings - as the list of books in the article under consideration made clear, he published a number of of other books, entirely written by himself.

Second, he was a recipient of the Cross of St Augustine. This is the second highest international award given in the Anglican communion, in recognition of an outstanding contribution to Anglicanism or ecumenism. It is highly selective.[But see WP:ITSNOTABLE ] A number of other recipients of the Cross of St Augustine have Wikipedia articles: and there is a Wikipedia Category for recipients of the Cross. I have added some information about this to the article, including Archbishop George Carey describing Robert Llewelyn as one of the outstanding spiritual teachers of the time.

--Mfcayley (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: The above comment was placed on the Wikipedia talk page of this AfD in good faith. I have copied it here as a courtesy to the user who left it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment): From the current Wikipedia article on the Cross of St Augustine: "There is no limit on the number of recipients, although the Cross is said to be awarded to 'a small number of clergy and lay people each year'." This description strikes me as not being particularly selective, but...?? Also: while I understand that awards such as this are meant to be an indicator of a person's notability, they are not usually by themselves considered complete evidence of this— evidence still would need to exist in the form of non-trivial discussion of the subject in published independent reliable secondary sources, something I was not been able to locate for this person.) KDS4444 (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Very few people receive the Cross. Typically there have been about a dozen - or less - awards of the Cross a year for the whole worldwide Anglican communion. According to Wikipedia there are estimated to be some 85 million Anglicans around the world: so the chances of an Anglican receiving the cross are probably less than the chances of a UK citizen receiving a UK peerage. --Mfcayley (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I found an obituary from the (London) Times[But see WP:ROUTINE ] and some reviews of his work in academic journals and periodicals, which I added to the article.Do any of these discuss the subject himself in any depth? My review of them doesn't seem to show this... KDS4444 (talk) He is widely cited in texts on Julian of Norwich, as a search will confirm, and several sources will confirm his importance (some referenced in the article), plus the award which may not in itself guarantee notability but shows his importance in the academic field of theology.But what we need are not just assertions of his notability or even evidence that others have cited his work but evidence of him having been the non-trivial subject of discussion in multiple reliable independent published sources. KDS4444 (talk) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please reply to comments in the usual fashion as described in WP:TALK, beneath them and indented, rather than inserting them into someone else's post.
Please also refer to specific sections of guidelines and how they are met or not met, rather than just waving around their name like a flag. WP:ROUTINE refers to announcements of events such as weddings, everyday regular happenings like sport reports, and "bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award" news stories. It does not mention obituaries, although it might apply to death notices: having obituaries in 2 of the UK's leading national newspapers is certainly not something that happens to everyone. The Telegraph obituary in particular is long and detailed.
WP:ACADEMIC says that notability can be established by showing that someone is widely cited (notes on criterion #1) or acknowledged as having made an important in their field (criterion #1), this being not merely asserted by the article but demonstrated by references. These are not precise criteria, but there is evidence of them both in quotations and the award, and is demonstrated by references.
WP:ACADEMIC criterion #2 (the one about awards) does not specify exactly what award is considered sufficient, but an award given by a (very) notable body with a long association with academia (the Church of England) for academic work would at least act as supporting evidence. You claim that the Cross of St Augustine is not selective, but it is given to a very few people each year, which appears to fulfil the definition of selective. The only higher award in the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury's Award for Outstanding Service to the Anglican Communion which has only ever been given to 2 people.
You claim that neither the obituaries nor the reviews of his work (including 2 from the prestigious journal Theology) discuss Llewelyn: on the contrary, the obituaries discuss his life and work in detail, and the articles discuss his ideas and his books; in an article on a writer what matters is their ideas, and naturally sources will primarily discuss their works. I'm also curious how you managed in just 11 minutes to review articles in old editions of journal not widely available online and pronounce them irrelevant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I am not following conventions on layout and indentation - or anything else: please be forbearing about this. This is the first time I have participated in a discussion like this, and I am not familiar with the conventions. I have posted an indented comment above about the very small number of recipients of the Cross of St Augustine - and I have added information about the number to the Wikipedia article on the Cross (typically at most around a dozen a year, some years less than 10, for the whole worldwide Anglican communion of - according to Wikipedia - some 85 million). I have also made several changes to the article under discussion here. I have managed to consult online Crockford's Clerical Directory (via my membership of a subscription library which gives electronic access), which I have added as a main source in the Life section, and also birth and death records. So the Life section is no longer reliant for the most part solely on an obituary. I have added to, and edited, the section on Robert Llewelyn's writings, including separating out the books of which he was just a compiler as opposed to having been the original author. --Mfcayley (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked also to consult the online Church Times archive - a search shows up the existence of several articles, including for the year in which Robert Llewelyn received the Cross of St Augustine - but I do not, unfortunately, have access. --Mfcayley (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Mfcayley: I think the Colapeninsula (talk · contribs) comment regarding formatting and indenting is targeted at KDS4444 (talk · contribs). @Colapeninsula: please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm surprised to see this even nominated. An obit in tThe Times has uniformly been considered here as a sufficiently reliable evidence for nationality The only other paper we say that for by itself is the NYTimes, but the obit in The Telegraph is strong additional evidence. If we dont count this as reliable sourcing, what do we count? It's not our role to argue for why he is considered notable, tho he does seem to be a notable schoolmaster and writer, and probably meets WP:AU?THOR even without the obits. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reasons clear from what I have said above. An author who was well-known in parts of the Christian world in his last 3 decades, gained academic and non-academic recognition, and was given a highly selective award. With achievements enough to earn him obituaries in two leading UK newspapers.... Though, as the author of the original version of this article (now much-improved - thank you to everyone who has helped in this) - I may not be allowed a say under Wikipedia rules: if not, please disregard this. --Mfcayley (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Author of BIO did himself little credit by not stating the subject's writing name. By searching GS for "R Llewelyn" Norwich" I find very few cites, low even for theology. odd. However Keep because of the obits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Mfcayley. His advocacy of Norwich and major awards make him notable; the Times and Telegraph obits are strong evidence therefor. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 20:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Manos[edit]

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

Self-published author with no secondary coverage. Blackguard 19:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, NAUTHOR. I've seen more developed bios deleted. This is an easy call. South Nashua (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I empathize with him, but he fails WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His main scholarly activity seems to be textbook writing, but for notability through that (WP:PROF#C4, rarely used) we would need evidence of wide use of his texts in higher education. But we appear to have no such evidence, no published reviews of his books (the linked web site gives only personal testimonials), and no other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted thrice, multiple dispositions about whether or not to keep, redirect or delete the article have been presented. Multiple cities experienced record breaking temperatures as well. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pakistan heat wave[edit]

2017 Pakistan heat wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yeah, another extreme weather event. Can't see that this one is particularly notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If kept take "record breaking" from the title. Notable weather events usually come with death and destruction. If it deaths came from this, keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After two weeks, we have not seen reports of large-scale "death and destruction". —Patrug (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment moved the article to 2017 Pakistan heat wave. No opinion yet on whether it should be deleted. Fuebaey (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article indicates that "A severe heat wave with temperatures as high as 50°C hit Pakistan.." That is 122 degrees fahrenheit for American editors. The title of “Record breaking Heat wave of April 2017 in Pakistan” is unencyclopedic. Encyclopedic titles are Detective Joe Friday like “Just the facts, Ma’am” titles. The article should remain retitled “2017 Pakistan heat wave”. A 2015 Pakistan heat wave that hit 45 49 celsius killed 800 2,000 people so there is no telling how many this heatwave will kill. The heatwave is currently building as reported by major news sources.[10] [11] Major news source reporting and the severity of the heat wave give the article WP:GNG. desmay (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those "major news sources" do not support the current content of the article. After two weeks, we have not seen reports of an unusually severe death toll. —Patrug (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting enough" is not the criterion for stand-alone Wikipedia articles, and in the last two weeks the article's content has not been "updated" at all. —Patrug (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Exceptional all aspects of society affecting events are ofc notable. However, these kind of articles may be merged into one, if reports are scarce. And there may be future articles or studies discussing impacts (mortality, power plants, water, crops etc). prokaryotes (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After two weeks, "reports are scarce" indeed, and we still see no evidence of "exceptional" impacts affecting "all aspects of society". Yes, this should be "merged into one" location: List of extreme weather records in Pakistan. —Patrug (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess latest sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now 15 of the 17 sentences are just recitations of temperature measurements from local news sources that routinely report the weather every day. These sentences provide no significant info beyond the table of recorded temperatures. The only non-local source, a premature story from Al Jazeera, does not support any of the content in the Wikipedia article. The only claimed fatalities, 4 unknown seniors, with unknown causes of death, are not reliably attributed to the heat wave. This is simply not encyclopedic content for a stand-alone article following WP:GNG, WP:SUSTAINED, and our WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy against routine news reporting. Nothing changes the above recommendations to merge into List of extreme weather records in Pakistan, which is where such events are properly recorded. —Patrug (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or Keep - I would argue that a temp of 124 F is notable per se, and should be included in the contemporary encyclopedia of record. Where it goes doesn't matter as long as it's searchable. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt, given all the previous deletions. This should not be restored without a deletion review, probably Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rain Gutters Inc[edit]

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

Small local company, most of the sources are about "the rain gutters" (lowercase) and not The Rain Gutters Inc™®™®®. What sources are actually about the company are PR or local puff pieces about how they... well... install rain gutters. Already been deleted twice and salted as The Rain Gutters. TimothyJosephWood 18:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An article for a non-notable local company that includes a laundry list of sources about rain gutters, not about the company. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Knight[edit]

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

Based on sources presented as well as those available through independent research, this individual does not appear to meet the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Rinkle gorge (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very few goolge-news hits. He ran in a senate primary - and lost. That's about it.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he would already have qualified for an article for other reasons independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the general election, thereby becoming an actual holder of office and not just a candidate for one, to earn a Wikipedia article on the basis of his participation in an election per se. But this doesn't show any evidence of preexisting notability — there isn't even any content here at all about anything he did between graduating high school and running in a primary, let alone any evidence that he would have earned a Wikipedia article for any of whatever that was. (Also determinative is the conflict between "he lives with his wife" in the body text and "spouse = single" in the infobox — not that marital status constitutes evidence of notability or lack thereof per se, but lack of notability is demonstrated by the lack of ability to reliably source which of those two statements is correct and which is wrong.) Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nipissing University academic programs[edit]

List of Nipissing University academic programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, WP:NOTDIRECTORY TimothyJosephWood 18:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see the harm in having this article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HARMLESS: "It's harmless" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Neutralitytalk 21:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; we're not a directory or a course catalog. A brief narrative overview of programs may be appropriate in the main article on the university. Neutralitytalk 21:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an obvious case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this just isn't encyclopedic, and obviously it wd go out of date every year. It isn't harmless, it's clutter, bound to be wrong, and a damaging precedent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a course catalog. -- Whpq (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while I loathe the "Arguments to avoid..." essay cited above, providing course catalogs is not one of the many purposes of Wikipedia. Lepricavark (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This isn't CourseCatalogPedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A course catalogue with no content User:Matthewwells55 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Airbus A350 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Rioja[edit]

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

No reliable biographical sources - merely promotional marketing material; person fails basic notability criteria from Wikipedia:NBIO Airbus A350 (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Airbus A350 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Airbus A350 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamlife B[edit]

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

Probably just squeaks by A7... probably depending on how you interpret "credible". No indication that this person or their record label are notable. Sources are all social media and iTunes. Their 16 soundcloud followers say about as much about their notability as the complete lack of sources... up to and including their official website, which doesn't seems to have gotten around to existing yet. TimothyJosephWood 17:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duane DaRock Ramos[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. A google search reveals no in-depth reporting, only a couple of interviews, PR releases, and single line mentions. reddogsix (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor rapper and music producer. As musician himself he fails WP:MUSICBIO in every criteria. No chart position, no significant radio airing, no awards, nothing. For his producer work, the article tries to namedrop some notable rappers; those collaborations have indeed happened it seems, but being producer for a couple of songs which are somehow associated with a few more well known musicians is not a strong argument for notability. Notability does not derive from association. He also fails WP:GNG generally. In-depth coverage of his person does not seem to exist, I could only find a couple of mentions of him in non-RS, there doesn't seem to be much on him out there. The article should therefore bet deleted due a lack of RS. Additionally this also seems to be a promotional piece, as the creator himself wrote on the talkpage that he personally works with the subject in question. Dead Mary (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rinôçérôse (album)[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation in 2006. WP:BEFORE finds download, social media, Soundcloud, etc. and little more. No apparent significant coverage in WP:RS and no indication that it qualifies under WP:NALBUM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Greatest hits/compilation albums by a single artist are seldom independently notable: the tracks and the artist may have coverage but the album as an entity doesn't produce much critical comment. There are exceptions like the Beatles' 1962–1966, but this album doesn't seem to have attracted in-depth coverage in the same way. No point redirecting. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While of limited coverage, has mentions in a few books. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acme (computer virus)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a directory of every known computer virus. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Found mentions in some books on Google book. Some internet articles talking about the virus. Though no media cover, would tend to vote weak keep as it is encyclopedic article. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found it cited in 2 books after performing a Google search, appears to be relevant Dkoenig9352 (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
welcome to Wikipedia.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete From comments, I suspect it only ever appears in "lists of viruses", never as an independent topic of discussion. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked? AfD comments, especially strong ones, are meant to be based on more than a hunch, and it should be easy for you to check. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the cited references, both of which take that form; if any of the people mentioning "books" will give a specific reference, I would gladly check that as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be userfied on request (though not by me).  Sandstein  14:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season[edit]

2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seasonal tennis articles must meet the Tennis Project Guidelines, and this one isn't even close. She has not won a Grand Slam tournament this year and she is not ranked in the top 5 (she's currently 262). She might make it by year end, but not now. Federer and Nadal had the same issue and we waited until they merited a seasonal article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Must pass" a project guideline is not a thing if the article can be shown to pass the WP:GNG. Now whether or not this one does is questionable at best. Yes, there's been quite a bit of commentary on Sharipova's invitations to and qualifying for tournaments coming off her suspension, but whether or not that is sufficient for a whole separate article instead of just a passage in the main article about her is doubtful. I'd suggest redirecting to the main article unless and until there's a reason to have a separate article (like the aforementioned tennis project guidelines). oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Oknazevad's reasoning for now. I suspect that this is an article which will wind up being sensible to re-create sooner or later (either under the guidelines cited or just because there ends up being a lot of noise and coverage of what Sharapova does post-ban), so the redirect will preserve any content worthy of being so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That can certainly be done though it sets a very bad precedent for other articles. 1000's of seasonal articles could be created in the same manner with little recourse other than to redirect. This started happening in the past and caused the current guidelines to be created. And just because there could be more coverage on Sharapova post-ban doesn't mean we create a 2017 season article on her. If it's noteworthy it will go in her main article or perhaps her career statistics article. All this being said, we can do the redirect (as opposed to userfying) as long as we revisit a deletion at the end of the year if she is unqualified. I don't want someone saying later "well, this redirect has been here for 6 months so now we should keep it." Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of articles could be created, but I doubt they will be. Admittedly, I'm only the kind of tennis fan who pays attention when a Grand Slam tournament is on, so I may be the wrong man to judge that claim. In terms of revisiting a redirect if that's the way to go, sounds fair to me. I don't normally follow RfD discussions, so is "It's been around for a while" a common rationale or justification for keeping one? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it numerous times where an editor will argue that since it's been there awhile there is no reason to remove it now. In cases like this Sharapova article it's rare we have anyone say we should keep it. Season articles for players are pretty fringe in the notability dept. We usually userfy these types of articles so the editors can keep updating it. Then if perchance she wins another Major or makes the top 5 (since she has won a Major in the past), an article is ready to go. I'd rather go that way, but I'm not going to complain as long as it's not an article until such time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. In that case, I'd support a userfication just in case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but Userfy - Since I opened this as a delete, I should probably make it clear that because there is a reasonable chance Sharapova could win one of the 3 remaining Majors or make it to top 5, it might be best to delete but userfy this article so the original editor can keep updating it just in case. It won't be easy for her, but she is not a run-of-the-mill player. She has a shot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 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 (✉) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Fredrikke Waaler Wærvågen[edit]

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

notability uncertain. Has never won a major international prize, has had a solo career essentially limited to her own country,and had made no notable recording. DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frida Fredrikke Waaler Wærvågen: "... has won first prices and Honorary awards in several international and national competitions. Further, she has made her mark as a soloist with professional orchestras at home and abroad." "Musicians who play the instruments in the Dextra Musica instrument collection". Sparebankstiftelsen.no. Knuand (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Itay Zalait[edit]

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

A web search just turns up sources for this 1 event so this subject meets WP:BLP1E and is otherwise not notable Domdeparis (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't find anything that may grant passing WP:CREATIVE, including Hebrew sources. He's known only for the golden statue of Bibi, which draw some attention, but beside this, nothing else. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford E. Wright[edit]

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

With no reliable sources found, this person fails WP:NBIO. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 construe Shawn in Montreal's support for speedy delete to be a !vote for deletion. Kurykh (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Key Account Management[edit]

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

Yet another snecking article on a marketing or management idea that is not notable in what is laughingly called the real world. TheLongTone (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sales heads and CEO's believe Key Account Management Technology can improve their overall revenue with minimum effort. This article explains about Key Account Management in detail. Hemantgond (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to ameleliorate such reptile's problems.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that it has been tagged for speedy deletion, G11, and I think justly so. I'm not qualified in this field and there does seem to be a lot of Gbook hits for the topic -- but the article as written seems to me to simply be advertising. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Gold Music[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. No independent refs of any note - just directory listings. Lists of representation and placements not borne out by any of the links provided. Clearly advertising. Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Cartwright[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. A search turns up essentially self published, affiliated and social media sources Domdeparis (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There's nothing in the article to support a claim of notability. A Google search does turn up sources that cover Cartwright, but don't appear to be the detailed coverage about him needed to support a claim. I will continue to search and hope that others will dig into his background. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- clearly promotional; it's possible that it was extensively edited by the subject himself, going by the user name. See: Special:Contributions/Mcphotog; this account created Glass Cabin Films, which is at AfD as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. The 3 refs are IMDb which is unreliable - his own website - and the city events sites listings have "no info" in all the slots. MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Cabin Films[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG the only sources I could find were social media sites self published sites and a couple of blogs Domdeparis (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I was going to say, redirect to Marc Cartwright, but this article is at AfD itself. Created by Special:Contributions/Mcphotog; this account appears to have a close connection to the subject as the only two articles it edited is this one and Cartwright's. Clearly, this is just a promo vehicle, so delete this spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‘Data Mining Genealogical Spreadsheets’[edit]

‘Data Mining Genealogical Spreadsheets’ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd speedy this but I'm unsure about what the appropriate category would be. Unreferenced, unintelligible, probably not a notable topic and possibly WP:NOTHOWTO TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsuitable for Wikipedia. The nominator has it just right - this could probably be speedied for a variety of reasons. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Edwards (Grey's Anatomy)[edit]

Stephanie Edwards (Grey's Anatomy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see why this character has any notability independently of the TV series. Esentially the article is fancruft. TheLongTone (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone , the character has appeared in 116 episodes and 5 seasons. The character has been integral to the main season 13 storyline involving the teaching system of the residents at the hospital and is set to make an exit in the season 13 finale, where the character will be the main focus of the episode, in 2 days after an almost 5 year run on the show. Calling it "fancruft" is completely untrue, considering there are Grey's Anatomy characters who have their own articles that have appeared in around 7-8 episodes like Sadie Harris or 3 season running Teddy Altman with very few references. - thelonggoneblues (talk) 17:21, May 16 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, so thelonggoneblues, are you saying this article is a 'keep' (i know as the article creator this may be seen as a given, however ...)? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable character - five seasons, 116 shows. Netherzone (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Coverage like [12], coupled with other sources in that section and reception suggest borderline notability. Mostly poor journalism/social media, but probably enough of them together to make a case for having her own page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that this character has any notability independent of the show. That other charcters have articles is to my ming a reason to nominate these for deletion rather than keeping this one. Since the Gray's anatomy fage is as bloated as one might expect, there is List of Grey's Anatomy characters into which they could all be merged.TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and popular character. CloudKade11 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Character appears to have received significant coverage in media (as noted by this Google search here). Aoba47 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh. The character gets covered because of the TV shoe. independent notability does not existTheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Apart from what has already been said (and the character's apparent popularity​), the character has drawn attention of notable critics beyond the show's scope (See: here, here, here, and here, and these are not anywhere near exhaustive). Her sickle-cell storyline was credited to bringing attention to the disease which definitely shows that notability "does" exist. (See: here, here, and here, again not exhaustive.) She has already been dubbed as one of the best characters on one of the longest running network drama, and that just doesn't come about without​ a certain "recognition" (See: here), not to ignore the discussion she stirred on her natural hair and identity. NumerounovedantTalk 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 01:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Tasioulas[edit]

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

not sourced at all Paedans (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ved Prakash (politician)[edit]

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

Non notable person. Fails GNG. this article was earlier PRODed but author removed the PROD himself. ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is effectively an unsourced WP:BLP as none of the references appear to mention the subject. My searches are finding no evidence that the subject is notable, nor is providing IT support for a political party or any other organisation inherently notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG. (Note that there is a similarly named assembly member, formerly of the Aam Aadmi Party, so searches return false positives.) AllyD (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Working on a political party's IT team is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG for it — but the sources shown here don't build that case, as not a single one of them even namechecks Prakash's existence at all, let alone being about him. Also, I can't prove it outright but this is pinging my conflict of interest radar as an article that was most likely created by either Prakash himself or a coworker of his. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Martinez de Azagra[edit]

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

BLP is promotional, lacks independent secondary sources. Atsme📞📧 14:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Adendro train derailment[edit]

2017 Adendro train derailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks any evidence of potential for long-term or wide-area impact per Wikipedia:Notability (events) Jayron32 13:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep train crashes in Greece are rare, this being the first in Greece with a fatality since December 2001, and there have only been two others in Greece worthy of a mention on Wikipedia since, in 2005 and 2008. The derailed train crashing into a building is also a very rare event, although not completely unknown. It is only right and proper that Wikipedia should cover this event. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We can't say that there is no long term impact, three days after the crash, see WP:EFFECT last paragraph. WP:GEOSCOPE is shown by this coverage from the UK: [13], [14] and [15]; this from the US [16]; this from India [17]; this from Ireland [18] this from the perliminary investigation [19]. For the preliminary investigation to be getting coverage shows a significant degree of significance, in addition to the international coverage. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above two rationales. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely a rare occurrence in Europe, let alone Greece. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets our notability requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Depending on the rarity of such an accident in Greece. --Lemur12 (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As others have said, an extremely rare event in Greece. Prioryman (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted as a hoax RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITB Wrestling[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources on this at all. Article details keep on changing and reads like a fantasy. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 13:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I wonder if it can actually be speedily deleted as a hoax, now that I think of it... SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 13:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: The assertion of 'Bunga Bunga' party (whatever that is) and 'Can't be named for legal reasons, but it called" shows that this is simply vandalism and a hoax. Nothing online to show to the contrary. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 21:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nilesh Soni[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER unless the Siachen Glacier Medal makes them notable and reads like a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL Gbawden (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siachen Glacier Medal is notable especially for the significance of Operation Meghdoot and also army officers who serve in Siachen itself is notable because of the weather and climatic conditions there and also its significance in the India Pakistan relations.

"Isolation from civilisation, subzero temperatures, avalanches and blizzards - these are just some of the adversities that India's brave jawans face on the highest and coldest battlefield in the world, the Siachen glacier." [1]

To stay and survive in isolated posts at altitudes as high as 21,000 feet, requires a great amount of physical courage, mental stamina - and nerves of steel. [2]

Also notable is that Nilesh Soni is a martyr who was killed at the time of active war in Siachen and that he was a part of Operation Meghdoot.

Moreover, numerous articles have been written about Nilesh Soni in the print media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathak.mehtaa (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aa che Siachen, January 2017, Harshal Pushkarna, Uranus Books, ISBN 9788193238905, page 32

The notability is also the age of the soldier.

Also cannot be dismissed as soldier doing his job because it is very important for people to know what happens with army officers protecting the country but also a lot has been talked about recently how there is lack of awareness among general public. More and more articles should be written about army officers and their work on wikipedia for people to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathak.mehtaa (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's his age got to do with it? He was 24, a perfectly common age for soldiers to be killed. Many millions of soldiers have been killed on active duty throughout history. It's all very sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. There has to be something that distinguishes him from the general run of army officers, and there just isn't. He was a junior officer, he was killed, he received a service medal. There is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Online news articles suggest that the coverage has been routine articles about his death and memorials to his death. The memorial to him on Anjali-Chandranagar BRTS road in Ahmedabad was built and paid for by his family, which is laudable, but does not suggest that the monument strongly increases the notability of the individual. He is given special mention in a book, Aa che Siachen [20], but I am not sure there is enough there for WP:GNG. If kept, there are some POV and tone issues in the article that should be dealt with. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unfortunate but not notable for stand alone article; WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nilesh has give his life for Safety Of peoples of mother land. His story as page in Wikipedia will be light house for young generation to do some things for Nation. His monuments is like KAhmbhi in memories of warrior who laid down his life for defiance of peoples. Nilesh story must keep on Wikipedia no reason for deletion.Regarding Siachin medal its is honour for his service in very difficult area and in extreme un favorable weather in which human can not survive.User : Jagdish Soni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhsoni (talk • contribs) 07:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  14:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bucer European Theological Seminary and Research Institutes[edit]

Martin Bucer European Theological Seminary and Research Institutes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed by author without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: No claims of importance or significance. Fails WP:ORG. The sources provided are not independent, or call for donations, or are faculty listings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Why has an institute that does research in areas like human rights, islamic studies, and religious freedom (done by scientist from all over the world) and that educates students all over europe, in Brazil and other countries No claims of importance or significance? -- Re145vision (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Martin Bucer Seminary. We normally keep bona fide tertiary institutions, and this is undoubtedly one - even though it seems to be unaccredited (but I don't know how accreditation works in Germany, anyway). Its monograph series, MBS-Texte, appears to be significant. StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, most references are self fulfilling, and reads more like an advert. ContentEditman (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (renamed as suggested). This is small tertiary college. Theology is commonly taught by specialist institutions rather than in mainstream universities, so that they commonly are relatively small. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can source it. Although at first glance I thought keep under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, 3. and tried to source it, it is a distance learning institution, which raised red flags. I got 4 or 5 gBooks hits on people listing themselves as graduates or faculty - paltry for a seminary. And a gNews hit on a christian Post op-ed by Thomas Schirrmacher, but his page also appears to be mere WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tried to upgrade this article. To show the importance of this seminary best, I think it would be necessary to publish a list of the books and articles that are written by faculty members. But that would be a very very long list! (The president of the seminary has published nearly 100 books ...) As I mentioned now in the article, it is the largest Evangelical Seminary in Europe outside of the UK and it has an educational philosophy that is - as far as I know - unique in theological education. So is that not notable? As far as I see "Martin Bucer European Theological Seminary and Research Institutes" is an official name and "Martin Bucer Seminary" is just a part of it – but I will try to find that out. I would like to improve this article. Do you have some concrete suggestions? What kind of reference are needed? Thanks and Greetings! Re145vision (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your reasoning that the article should be kept, but how do you know it is the "largest Evangelical Seminary in Europe outside of the UK"? StAnselm (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference but I will try to find a better one. You can look up the evangelical seminaries in Europe on Wikipedia – most have between 50 and 200 students. Only the UK has very large seminaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_evangelical_seminaries_and_theological_colleges#Other_European Re145vision (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for adding the reference. StAnselm (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can I renamed the title to "Martin Bucer Seminary"? Re145vision (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's better just to wait until this discussion is ended. StAnselm (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin's scale of liking and love[edit]

Rubin's scale of liking and love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would have redirected to Rubin's article, but I think this totally unsourced article (which searches turned up zero on this particular term - seems to be ripped from the book by Rubin) should be deleted as original research. Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Grey (actor)[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show this actor passes WP:GNG (all the hits appear to be about a more recent actor of the same name), and he certainly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 11:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough evidence of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dorje (band). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rabea Massaad[edit]

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

Not notable. Some minor coverage, but fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Dorje (band). Massaad has some coverage but very little that is both independent and not about him & the group he is performing with. Lacks significant coverage of independent activity such as projects he led or solo releases. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Gab4gab (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Wrestling Alliance[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion and referenced primarily by primary sources.. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable it would seem. References are not authoritative. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:NPASR. Courses of action other than deletion can be discussed in the appropriate fora. Kurykh (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haseul (single)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Migrate any significant information to the album article. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All single albums by Loona (band) so far have had articles created for them, as all of them have have charted and made sales on the Gaon Album Chart. If the problem is references, I am more than happy to find trusted sources. Abdotorg (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdotorg:That would be great if you could include referenced info that shows the song meets WP:NSONG. I did some research myself, but could only find fansites, music stores, and the like. But perhaps there are better sources in Korean.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about refs from the official Gaon Music Chart? They are already included in the group's main article as of current, which shows where the album charted and how many sales it made in the first month. Abdotorg (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be in the song article, and it needs to be about the song.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it needs to be about the song. No, it doesn't need to be in the article for the sake of the AFD. Technically, all you need to do is show the sourcing exists. (Looks like someone presented it below.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Migrate any significant information to the album article" is a merge proposal and would not allow the article to be deleted. This is therefore the wrong forum. --Michig (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this nomination doesn't make sense. The article in question is an (albeit very short) album, which debuted on the Korean charts at #35 in Dec 2016 - so meets WP:NALBUMS #2. I'm not entirely sure how K-pop works but it seems like a mini-album/maxi single is used here rather than a typical Western pop single format. Fuebaey (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Haven't searched enough to do a full !vote, though I'm leaning keep with the Gaon chart, which is South Korea's national chart, so it is a significant placement. Wanted to point out though - if kept, it needs to be moved to its correct article title. The correct disambiguation term would be "song", not "single", though no disambiguation is necessary at all, considering "Haseul" currently goes unused. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will make sure to add refs from Gaon to the page asap, and I am considering moving the article (and others of it's type) into Haseul (single album) just to keep from confusion. Abdotorg (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see, I didn't realize that, while "Haseul" is the name of the single release, that there is no such song on the release named Haseul. That's...rather bizarre, in my experience. Regardless, it doesn't really matter what it is, if there's nothing at "Haseul", then the article should only be moved to "Haseul". The words in parentheses in Wikipedia article titles are only supposed to be used if you need to distinguish it from other subjects of the same name. If there isn't anything at that name, no parentheses should be used. Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hack writer. And possibly merge content from history.  Sandstein  14:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Slime Journalism[edit]

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

An essay built around a neologism used in a few news articles. No indication that anyone else, really, has noticed or is using this term. Calton | Talk 04:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is it possible that some information about the term could be merged into the article for yellow journalism since the name of this does refer to that term, if there's enough sourcing to justify this? Since the class is still ongoing it may also be a good idea to send this to the student's userspace (since this is part of a class project) so they can work on improving this, if there's consensus to delete without any merge. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect per WP:CHEAP. This exists - my old friend Regina Calcaterra was a victim of this crap - but I'm not sure the concept is well known, or that well documented. Bearian (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't think that Yellow journalism is the best target, since these appear to be two different concepts. LocalLabs (a redirect of Journatic) may be a better target, where the content from this article could be used to create a "Reception" section. I'd say, Redirect to LocalLabs & pick up anything useful from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changing iVote, see below) I think the academic journal articleand the article form the Poynter Institute covere this form of slimy journalism in sufficient detail to pass WP:NEO. And that keep is better than a redirect to LocalLabs which Poynter characterizes as a subspecies of pink slime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some form of this, even renamed or merged. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge (selectively) to hack writer, old time term for this precise phenomenon. I came back and did a series of more extensive searches, this appears to have been a topic briefly, producing a single article in a minor journal. I was not satisfied that anyone had found a proper merge topic, but as I thought about it, I realized that hack wirter is a perfect fit, this material will make a nice addition to that page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  14:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WayRay[edit]

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

This firm has not yet produced any products. Everything is still under development or speculative. Inclusion in lists is not suitable refs. for notability DGG ( talk ) 10:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WayRay's long development cycle doesn't undermine notability. Media coverage is solid (check the references num. 1, 3, 9, 15 and 23) and the R&D behind their products got the prestigious Zvorykin Award. That's quite enough. --Gruznov (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article to remove the marketing content and puffery. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing++ 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, you cut off ¾ of the article, including mere facts and major sources. That included all the pre-history, most of the history (including the paragraph about Switzerland), all the information about concepts, technologies and products, awards and business model along with references to Reuters, Forbes etc. Mind to explain your edit in detail? --Gruznov (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure think Gruznov, it was rubbish marketing crap/spam that doesn't have any merit in an article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform for companies to lay out their "vision" or "concepts" or "business models". The "references" were advertorials. If you want to include stuff like that, find an independent secondary source (which will indicate to us that something about the "vision" or "concept" or "business model" is notable). The reuters source is an advertorial (and the founder is only two years old? Go figure) fails WP:ORGIND, the Forbes reference is a contributer's blog so self-published. -- HighKing++ 14:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are sincerely mistaken and underestimate the level and quality of publications. See also below. --Gruznov (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It actually meets WP:ORGCRITE, as Slon.ru (currently named Republic, a QZ/The Economist-like web magazine), Rusbase (Russian wannabe Techcrunch) and The Firm's Secret publications are dedicated to subject and provide deep coverage of company's history and affairs and the article is well-sourced in general. The article mentions investments, contracts and products, but it's not a WP:PROMO case since the references are in place and the style is objective. The "Developments" part may require additional review, but the equipment in Rinspeed concept car seems to be a working product. Basically, WayRay meets primary criteria and GNG and a harsh approach is unnecessary here. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It actually doesn't. All those sources you mentioned are advertorials - interviews dressed up as "news" articles. They're 100% promotion. They fail WP:ORGIND. They are not "intellectually" independent. -- HighKing++ 14:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Gruznov and Timofei Vatolin. I do not consider the articles to be promotional. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's take three reference sources and consider them carefully. These three texts, I think, should clearly show that WayRay has good information coverage for years. And these are very high-quality and independent materials:
The first one was published in October 2013 in Slon.ru (now Republic.ru). This is a large and influential socio-political media in Russia. The author of the text is the editor-in-chief.
The second text was released in March 2017 in the publication The Firm's Secret was published detailed material on WayRay. The reason for the review article was the receipt of investment from Alibaba. The secret of the firm is a significant and independent Russian economic media. With an impeccable reputation (also irreproachable is the reputation of the editor-in-chief, Nikolay Kononov, about whom I wrote and translated the article).
The third text is a publication in Russian Forbes, written by Elena Krauzova (Forbes staff), again on the occasion of investment Alibaba (An important point: Krauzova is one of the most famous Russian authors writing about technology companies). --Gruznov (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Reyes-Chow[edit]

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

Non-notable subject; non reliable sources (several dead, fake or misleading) Maineartists (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I've gone through the sources (not WP:RS), and the subject of the bio fails inclusion per WP:NBIO. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject lacks notability and the article lacks credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The subject has received significant coverage from a newspaper local to his place of birth, and has blogged and written extensively, as well as been interviewed by NPR. The subject themselves outside of those two sources have not received significant coverage in their own right. One can argue per WP:POSITION that the subject should have a stand-alone article, due to him being elected moderator, however, moderator is not the same as say WP:NBISHOP. That said I can see a Redirect for the article to the page about moderators, as is the case with WP:POLOUTCOMES.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 'News' section in the {{Find sources AFD}}, above, has plenty to substantiate his role, and yes, the moderator of PCUSA is certainly as notable as a run-of-the-mill Roman Catholic bishop. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the subject is an active blogger. But writing content does not make the writer notable necessarily. That said, content which was specifically about the subject of this AfD, I have only found the two I have linked, and the interview was more about something else rather than the subject of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Moderator of the PCUSA is certainly the equivalent of a bishop: he was the head of a denomination with 1.5 million members. Iain D. Campbell was kept at AfD a month ago on the basis of him being Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, which has only 13,000 members. I also note that his predecessor and successor both have their own articles. StAnselm (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment WP does not (and should not) grant notability and article inclusion based simply on other subjects; nor should it accept that notability by equalizing one status for another.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 05:19, 4 May 2017 (PDT) (UTC)
I must concur with Maineartists (talk · contribs) as the reasoning falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is essentially head of a denomination and therefore notable, as head of any other major organization. The article, however, has unfortunate resemblances to a campaign biography,but I;ve fixed the worst of it. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, DGG, but you've only removed the worst of the promotional material. There is still nothing to demonstrate that he meets WP:N. Does every purported head of a denomination automatically make them noteworthy for a Wikipedia article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a poor article, but having been Moderator of Presbyterian Church (USA), he had a position similar to a bishop. I note from the list article that many (but not all) of the previous moderators have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The essay/WP:SNG of WP:NBISHOP, makes the presumption of significant coverage of a Roman Catholic Bishop. Such an assumption still needs to be verified by reliable sources, even if not available online, in order to meet the base requirements set forth in WP:ANYBIO. I have only found one non-connected reliable source where the subject has received significant coverage, which I linked in my WD/R opinion. The argument being proposed by Peterkingiron falls entirely within AfD reasoning to avoid WP:POSITION. One item of significant coverage from a tertiary reliable source is insufficient IMHO to show notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SendForensics[edit]

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

Recreated after A7 deletion, but with substantially different content. Probably NN. Most search results are press releases. feminist 10:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. feminist 10:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. feminist 10:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing in Proportion[edit]

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

This article is about the Royal Mail pricing structure. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTCATALOGUE.   Tentinator   10:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visthapit Parivaron Ka Samajshashtriya Adhyayan[edit]

Visthapit Parivaron Ka Samajshashtriya Adhyayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is technically a "contested PROD"

This article at first glance appears to about a book, but on closer reading appears to be about its author. I have done the required due diligence but can find no evidence that Dr Pare meets the WP:ACADEMIC notability guideline.

I also note that this article includes text that appears to be obviously copied and pasted from Dr Pare's personal website so it may also meet the WP:G12 speedy deletion criterion. Shirt58 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P739[edit]

P739 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

P739 is the missed delivery card used by Royal Mail. While the subject of Royal Mail missing deliveries may be notable, the card itself is not notable (fails WP:GNG).   Tentinator   09:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ...Maybe redirect to Royal Mail. But the form itself does not appear to meet GNG, and it's such a generic subject, that there's really no other standard to apply. TimothyJosephWood 14:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No indepth coverage of this. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Morton[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator Seasider91 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 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. Also a BLPPROD in its current state. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Markaj[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 16 May 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) 13:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetiee weds NRI[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. feminist 07:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. feminist 07:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. feminist 07:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been just been started

Adding all the evidence shortly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnakhua (talk • contribs) 07:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on the article as it currently stands (although I'm happy to revise this based on the comment from the above contributor, as AfD isn't an instant process by any means). Leaving aside the IMDB coverage confirming the film's existence, the two other references read as being relatively trivial mentions of the film (frankly, they read as advertising for it rather than journalism, but that's only my take), which is generally to be expected for a film yet to be released. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This reads like a cut and paste from IMDB (and mostly is). If the article ends up edited to reflect more than merely DB information (as noted above AfD isn't instant) it might be worth keeping. Ceronomus (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Dlohcierekim as G7. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bordoodle[edit]

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

Full of PoV and probably a vehicle for the linked pet shop. Sources are not reliable and are not national media coverage. Previously PRODed, the concern was: Not notable, yet another cross breed. Refs are to Wikipedia or personal breeder website (image used is stamped with breeder logo too). Searches only come up with other personal breeder web sites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. In common with many of these "breeds" sources are the personal websites of people trying to sell pups and unreliable SPS/SEO sites. In this particular case, there are presently two breeder sites used as refs providing conflicting information: stating "ideal for families and children" at one point yet "These are not dog suggest for first time dog owners or families with small children. Both border collies and poodles can be dominant and not tolerant of small children." is given later. The registries are not nationally recognised kennel clubs. It is full of POV like the smartest dogs in the world etc etc SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cute dog, less cute spam. A WP:BEFORE search indicates no coverage by WP:RS at all. 11:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Delete: WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". What makes Mountain Rose Borderdoodles, Next Day Pets, or Safari Doodles reliable sources? And how can any of the sources be considered "independent of the subject"? There's simply no notability demonstrable. --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • have deleted per WP:CSD#g7 per this edit, misplaced on AfD page.Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant Yadav[edit]

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

Biography of an actor who does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. He was the winner of a docu soap in 2010, but looking at the article for that show it does not look like something that would make the winner notable (WP:ENT does not give automatic notability to reality show winners). The other claim to notability is a role in a minor TV series, which from what I have been able to make out was fairly short-lived. I have found one or two minor/trivial notices about Yadav being cast for the serial (including one that said that he auditioned for the lead but was instead cast in a minor role) but nothing that would come close to satisfying WP:SIGCOV. bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeachDish[edit]

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

DePRODed but advertorial issues not addressed. Concern was: 'Insufficiently notable company, created for advertising purposes by someone who appears to be the company's founder.' Indeed, the creator appears to have edited the article many times without logging in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh - G11 and be done with it. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of liberalism[edit]

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

Seems like an essay about a neologism. Whether the neologism is notable or not, this article seems heavy in WP:OR. It doesn't discuss the term outside the lead; the sources used to define it are problematic - books without a page range. I found first in Google Books but couldn't verify the term is even used there, and the second one seems improperly cited (perhaps it is a chapter in another book), the book with stated ISBN doesn't seem to use this term at all. Bottom line, even if this term is notable, this mess of an essay seems in need of WP:TNT. Ping User:KAP03 who added essay-like cleanup template, User:Atlantic306 who added a prod template, and User:Staszek Lem who attempted to rewrite it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to suffer from original research, synthesis and a lack of neutrality and criticism of the subject (I didn't actually prod it , just added an edit summary but I agree with the prod and the AFD.) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is true that there has been a spate of recent articles on this crisis [21] it is also true that everyone from Argentina to Karl Mannheim suffered a "Crisis of Liberalism" in the 1930s [22] and that someone or other has had one pretty much every month since. This article, in each of its iterations, suffers from a fatal case of WP:SYNTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:SYNTH and original essay. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment please take a look at Crisis of faith page, same WP:OR IMO, while the term is better defined. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. AusLondonder (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Health and Physical Education Arena[edit]

Health and Physical Education Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable university area. Fails GNG. References are passing mentions, not in-depth independent coverage. Can be mentioned at TSU article in the Athletic Facilities section with a redirect. There is no reason for a stand-alone article. I previously redirected this, but was reverted with comment "Division I basketball arenas are notable". That seems to be opinion not based in policy hence taking to AFD. MB 16:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As I said in my reversion, Division I basketball arenas, especially active ones like this, are considered notable by consensus. Also, the arena will be hosting University of Houston basketball games next year as well (another Division I team) so simply stating that information in the TSU article is insufficient. In fairness, that information wasn't in the article when it was redirected, but I have since added it. Smartyllama (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the well-reasoned arguments of Smartyllama. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above (especially Smartyllama). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one is providing any sources to demonstrate coverage necessary to justify an article, or provided a policy exemption. Vague claims that based on prior "consensus" are not based in policy. WP:CON applies to article content. In the case of AFD, consensus means there is a consensus about whether this topic meets or does not meet a notability guideline. Please explain how it does. MB 13:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. What consensus? I'd suggest a merge to some list, but I cannot find a relevant one. The building does not seem notable - it has no independent coverage - and the fact that some notable people played sports there doesn't make it notable. Notability is not inherited. Sport venues should not be notable because they are locations of notable events, just like we shouldn't say that 'this music hall is notable because a notable musician played there' or 'this gallery is notable because notable artist had her works displayed there'. And so on. Closing admin should also remember that quality of arguments, and their respect for our policies, should matter - this is not a vote. (And anyway, I see one argument against, and then two Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Per_others). PS. If possible, I'd prefer a merge of this content somewhere rather then deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usage of the arena as a home court for an NCAA Division I basketball team is a strong claim of notability and the sourcing here is adequate to support that claim. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Claims" of notability need to be supported by coverage. MB 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upon googling this I found multiple third party sources talking about this arena that would meet notability per WP:GEOFEAT. A consensus was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball a few years ago that all D1 basketball arenas are notable. You can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Master Table there is a list of all articles for each school. EVERY school in D1 basketball has an article for its arena. If this is to be deleted it would be the only D1 school without an article for its basketball arena which doesn't seem right and could cause issues in some of the basketball templates that link to the arena articles.Mjs32193 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Can you provide any links to show how third party sources talk about this arena. 2. The fact that is linked in a template is irrelevant, WP does not establish notability. 3. Is there any documentation of this "consensus" from a few years ago, and how can a project override GNG? 4. A redirect can be kept to keep a blue link in the template, however there are many templates with redlinks throughout WP so that is really not important. 5. I see this AFD is advertised at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball which is probably what is attracting so many keeps that aren't providing valid arguments. MB 18:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And notifying relevant WikiProjects is exactly what you are supposed to do. Smartyllama (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking into this, I think the arena is more commonly-known as "H&PE Arena". Articles discussing Houston playing here use that term. Those articles, I believe, help establish notability. IMO, the other keep arguments here are a bit weak and are mostly of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type. I think adding more reliable sources to the article are the best way to improve the article and keep it from being merged/redirected to Texas Southern. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is no coverage of the arena, even under the name "H&PE Arena". A passing mention that some event is happening in the arena is routine and not in-depth coverage about the topic. MB 18:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin-Lipscomb Performing Arts Center for another place with similar goggle hits - just announcements of things happening there. Yet no one is arguing keep. Sports should not be handled differently. MB 18:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added additional references. Division I basketball arenas/stadiums are considered notable by consensus. Sports should be and are handled differently.spatms (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Condition (philosophy)[edit]

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

Appears to be a personal essay/WP:OR. Not sure what encyclopedic value can be gleaned from what's there. I think at this point, WP:TNT may be the best option. Ajpolino (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Andrew Davidson: who deprodded article earlier and may have useful insight to add.Ajpolino (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Reading this is painful, the lead is very philosophical and manages IMHO to explain nothing. Now, the topic may be notable - see [23]. But whether this essay-like / OR / SYNTH piece is salvageable, I am not sure, leaning towards WP:TNT (but I do have a bias against philosophy)... Anyway, more seriously, while I think the underlying topic may be notable, I am not sure if there is much we can salvage from this. A lot of content here is unreferenced and likely OR. Trimming this down to few meaningful sentences could make it useful, perhaps. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic is philosophically valid but already treated at Necessity and sufficiency (which Necessary and sufficient condition redirects to, and which is linked from Condition). This article is not very well written and has nothing worth merging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Slater (composer)[edit]

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

Information of no public interest Composermark (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Wood: Lucky Bag Tour[edit]

Victoria Wood: Lucky Bag Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable comedy tour, akin to not passing WP:NTOUR. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 04:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seanbrian[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: 'No indication of importance or significance. Promotional. No reliable, in-depth coverage.' Fails to meet criteria at WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly promotional, the page creator's username is the acronym for "Hollywood of the South, Georgia" which is the page subject's production company name (so COI and username issues, too). All the roles listed are bit/extra parts or indy productions that never went anywhere, all links are self-promotional. JamesG5 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:57, 16 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, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with storm and fire: Nom said it all; there's no notability criteria this wannabe actor/auteur would ever meet. Ravenswing 11:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Their reach may extend "beyond our boarders with relationships overseas" ([24]), but since the subject seems to be neither involved with a boarding house, snowboards or surfboards, I'm just going assume that this is a terribly written article about a non-notable person. Their inexplicable commitment to the pseduo-mononym... combined with the fact that this apparently is a thing that exists, is just too much cringe for even the internet to handle. The only think that kept me from nominating for speedy was the unsourced list, which probably squeeks by the "fundamentally rewritten" criteria, since it is, after all, most of the article, and the only part that doesn't need to be immediately removed, assuming it is actually source-able. Either way, even if it were, wouldn't establish notability. TimothyJosephWood 14:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obvious promotional page from non-notable COI editor is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ballard[edit]

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

Noticed that there was a challenged prod from @DGG:: Does not appear to be within Wikipedia's scope due to WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE. Sadads (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe that this article should be kept. As the subject is defiantly more relevant to one region than to another, it will always veer towards WP:GEOSCAPE. That being said, the ABC national news at 6:30 on 26 April did cover the story. As far as lasting impact, Ballard was the first DE State Trooper to be killed in 45 years, a fact that multiple sources cited in the article reference, provides some degree of staying power. The spike in news stories regarding Ballard should be judged in accordance with WP: NTEMP. As a side note, articles such as Trevor Casper (a very similar situation) establish somewhat of a precedent. The article should be improved, and an eye should defiantly be kept out for the long term effects of the death of Ballard. SamHolt6 19:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: SamHolt6 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Delete. single murder. No long term effects as of now. The first state officer in a small state to be killed does not make it notable, or predict long term interest especially in a state where multiple city officers have been killed (because the state includes Baltimore). If NOT NEWS applies to anything , it applies here. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, Baltimore is in Maryland, not Delaware. More to the point, although this was started as an article about a single killing, when I ran a quick google I immediately saw that in fact it is about the killing of a police officer, followed by the police shooting of the killer. And that it has had ramifications because Delaware is in the midst of a complex debate over Capital punishment in Delaware and because of the details of this shooting, this case instantly became part of that debate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 8 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) 02:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move article to Shooting of Stephen Ballard. Sourcing this now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should hold off judgment her as per WP:RAPID. Article was written as a memorial to slain police officer. I did not see police officer's race mentioned. However, police tracked shooter to his home, there was a shootout, after which the suspect exited the house and was shot. Suspect looks black [25]. I think this needs to be looked into, but I don't have time to do read/search more on it just now, however, there are at least 2 dead, and an explanation needed about the timing of the shooting at the suspect's house and why he was shot as he exited the house after he reportedly had stopped shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photos here: [26] of shooter, murdered officer, and house where perp lived with parents (police tore windows off with explosives during standoff).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is out-of state coverage (WaPo search : [27]), more significantly, it is playing a role in the move to reinstate the death penalty in Delaware so it has had an immediate legislative impact, now sourced in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • National coverage for a police officer killed in the line of duty is routine. So are calls for tougher penalties for cop killers. Lasting impact will be proven when lawmakers actually enact something. Right now, this article is a pseudobiography of one event. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • National coverage does, however, meets WP:GEOSCOPE. And "calls for tougher penalties for cop killers" can confer notability, depending on how loud they are and how long they continue. Far from being a "pseudobiography," The article is about the shooting of the police officer, the standoff an shooting of the shooter, and the impact on the hot issue of reinstating Capital punishment in Delaware, where a prison guard was also killed this year. " I did not start this article, I found it at AfD, and ran a search on the topic. I am suggesting that as per WP:RAPID, it makes sense to keep it and revisit in a year to see whether this case turns out to garner ongoing attention, or not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the death penalty change in Delaware has raised the coverage of him and his death to the level of meeting WP:N. I could go either way on the article being about him or the event. That might be a discussion worth having on the talk page (if kept) after a period of time passes to sort out the on going coverage. GtstrickyTalk or C 03:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 03:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The circumstances combined with the scope and breadth of coverage about this case meets the notability standard. A rename could also be considered. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & move to Shooting of Stephen Ballard; long term societal impact with the reinstatement of death penalty in the state. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of independent WP:RS to make him notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Gioia[edit]

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

Produced a couple random songs; claims of "multi platinum" are tied to the artist, not the producer. No sourcing found, just did a couple songs and disappeared. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find no source for any of the "multi-platinum" claims other than a number of promotional pages for various audio software. Ceronomus (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Dietz[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:1E. -- Irn (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crunge[edit]

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

Absolute nonsense supposed neologism. Old word reworked for puffery. Mentioned by Led Zep. Old Scottish word. scope_creep (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 02:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not much else to add other than what is above. Ceronomus (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NEO. Also, since The Crunge is a thing that exists, the onus is largely on the author to make the case here, that is, unless someone is willing to sort through a few hundred sources much/most of which are likely about Led Zeppelin. As it happens, the article itself is very nearly the best argument against notability that can probably be made. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Particularly per Montanabw, who wrote the guideline and presumably knows what is reasonably notable in the rodeo world. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bain[edit]

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

Another non-notable qualifier who apparently has done nothing much since article was created Montanabw(talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a non-notable rodeo participant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NRODEO, so presumption is that sources exist. Three sources are provided in the article, so we don't even need the presumption. Also twice competed in NFR, so its not WP:1E. Not sure on the point "...apparently has done nothing much since article was created." Don't know what they need to do more of - they already twice competed at the highest level. I know of no requirement of sustained excellence five years later. RonSigPi (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:NRODEO. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • NRODEO is a guideline, this individual fails to meet WP:GNG. The article has sources, but they are not helping, they note that he won four rodeos one year. Not impressive. One source is a passing mention, the other two are local papers. Montanabw(talk) 09:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The GNG is a guideline also. SL93 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • GNG is a shortcut to a subsection of WP:N, which is policy. Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline." SL93 (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has come up multiple times, but while editors should be mindful of local sources, local sources in of themselves are perfectly acceptable regarding GNG.RonSigPi (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom: While I actually agree that local coverage can "count" toward the coverage requirement to meet WP:N , the problem is that this particular person really hasn't done anything of importance even though he hit the local papers a couple times. The point is that he qualified for the national level twice, but didn't even finish in the money. If he'd run second or third at the NFR, I'd probably not have put this up for AfD. But as it sits, unless you can actually find more sources (and note them here), what's in the article fails to establish notability -- NSPORTS is a floor, not a guarantee of an article. Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient quality and detailed sources to warrant an article per WP:GNG; subject-specific guidelines are not dispositive.  Sandstein  14:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reading of WP:N is ""A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." This cannot mean that the special notability guidelines are merely secondary or limitations on the GNG--it says "or" , not "and". It has to meet one or the other. If this is not the intent of the community, we'd have to find and agree on a better wording. (I suggest the place to do that is on the individual SNGs, because I think the consensus is likely to be different.) There's also been a good deal of confusion about "presumed"-- what the plain meaning of the word is, that it holds unless it is actually proven otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not meet WP:NRODEO, which is a part of the sports guideline that says "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • delete per lankiveil. coverage is not sufficient to meet GNG. For the local sources to come close to meeting RS requirement, they would need to be much deeper and broader than what is here.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. The "delete" argument is that because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not all topics that are newsworthy (i.e. have coverage in the news) are necessarily suitable for inclusion. The clear consensus, however, is that the topic of this article is an encyclopedic event of historical significance, beyond just being newsworthy, based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (events). Mz7 (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia[edit]

Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. reddogsix (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Improve Move relevant details the article wants to cover into its own section in an already made article about Donald Trump or Donald Trump/Russia, or greatly improve the article to the point it can stand alone if this determined as a notable event. As right now it is just a very short introduction, with a copy/paste from the introductions of Russian interference in elections and Dismissal of James Comey along with a bunch of named reference that were lost on the way over. WikiVirusC (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Press: "The outgoing White House also became concerned about the Trump team’s handling of classified information. After learning that highly sensitive documents from a secure room at the transition’s Washington headquarters were being copied and removed from the facility, Obama’s national security team decided to only allow the transition officials to view some information at the White House, including documents on the government’s contingency plans for crises."
New York Times: From Trump’s Mar-a-Lago to Facebook, a National Security Crisis in the Open: "— President Trump and his top aides coordinated their response to North Korea’s missile test on Saturday night in full view of diners at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida — a remarkable public display of presidential activity that is almost always conducted in highly secure settings." See also Trump ran a campaign based on intelligence security. That’s not how he’s governing., Washington Post (Feb. 13, 2017).</ref>
Washington Post: Trump turns Mar-a-Lago Club terrace into open-air situation room: "Now, Trump is drawing fire from Democrats for his own seemingly loose attitude toward information security. He has continued to use an insecure cellphone, according to the New York Times. He may have left a key to classified information on his desk while visitors were in the Oval Office...."
Washington Post: 'Nuclear football' photo taken at Trump’s golf resort puts the Pentagon in an awkward position: "The photographs have prompted questions among some national security professionals because it appears Trump and his staff handled a sensitive — and potentially classified — security situation in public."
Neutralitytalk 01:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not convincing. Such an article would be WP:SYNTHESIS unless serious sources connect the dots. Of course, such sources may exist… — JFG talk 04:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources discuss these events collectively, as a quick search will show. The Washington Post article mentions this: "Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials ... faced criticism for seemingly lax attention to security at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners..." Or this piece by Jack Goldsmith and others: "This approach to sensitive information does not appear to be a one-off. President Trump has previously taken heat for his cavalier attitude towards safeguarding classified information, for example when he openly reviewed plans related to a North Korean nuclear test in the Mar-a-Lago dining room in full view of other diners or when he appeared to inadvertently confirm the authenticity of leaked CIA documents on Fox News." Neutralitytalk 04:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps even something related to Trump's relations with Russia, like Donald Trump–Russia relations? It would be a rather unique article, but there's no lack of sources discussing their relationship, whatever that may entail. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that title, I came up with Alleged Russian involvement with the Trump presidency here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support Neutrality's suggestion to create an info sec under the Trump adm article where "Donald Trump revelation of classified information to Russia" would re-direct. I oppose the suggestions above to create a 'Donald Trump–Russia relations' article. The material that would go into such an article already exists in 'Russian interference....' and 'Foreign Policy of the Trump adm." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - This story is already covered by Presidency of Donald Trump. The article at issue in this thread should be either deleted or merged into the Presidency article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean where you tried to remove it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please remember to be civil. SMP0328. (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am civil. You tried to remove the info from the article you are now saying "it's already covered in". Here. Right here is where you try to do it. Please act in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was a removal from the lead -- a correct one. The place for that paragraph is in the article body. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 16 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) 01:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of what? Donald Trump non-revelation of classified information to Russia? Wasn't aware we had that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously of Presidency of Donald Trump. We don't need a separate article for each day's news item. At the end of four years, I can imagine we'll have a couple hundred of these POV forks scattered across Wikipedia: POV phrasing of scandalous event from day 231, POV phrasing of scandalous event from day 235, POV phrasing of scandalous event from day 239, and so on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This ain't a "each day's news item".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Not even sure why this is up for discussion...Fireflyfanboy (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a well reported news story. Obvious political intentions behind the proposed deletion. KingAntenor (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRename and Expand - It is presidential prerogative to disclose intelligence to whomever. The real on-going issue is the Trump/Russia connection. If we look at this incident retrospectively in another year - there is no way this single incident will stand alone - and not be folded into whatever entry(ies) cover the "Trump XXX Russia" entry(ies).Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Seeing that there seems to be no entry on "Trump / Russia" (affair? investigations? links? conspiracy theory? - lots of POV issues in naming) - beyond Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - I believe it is appropriate to create one focused on post-election issues. I think this incident is notable - but that it should be placed in a wider context (of the calls to investigate "Trump / Russia").Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable and covered in myriad RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is obviously notable, both as part of the larger Trump-Russia investigation and on its own as an unprecedented leak of classified intel by POTUS. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 06:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and well covered. If it ends up being debunked we can reconsider. Bakilas (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS.--2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no reason why a short summary of this couldn't be included in Trump's article.128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This specific incident has been perceived as exceptional behavior for a president by RS, and is strongly sourced. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:NOTNEWS, moreover the section on Presidency of Donald Trump (which is almost too much as of now) can comfortably hold the contents of this article - which is largely redundant, evidenced by the fact that the lead is its largest section. Editors can expand the section on Presidency of Donald Trump if need be. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Short mention in Presidency of Donald Trump and move on. No need for a whole article. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep No idea why this would even be nominated. Clearly an important event, with rammifications for US foregin policy - and the intelligence community Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like it or not, Wikipedia does create articles about current news items, especially if they make people in power look like fools. 2600:1002:B111:2A77:D4BC:601B:1BEE:35FF (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course we must be selective about which Trump scandals get their own pages, but they can't all sit on the main page, and this is of major significance based on coverage to date. Artw (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FART. This topic appears to have been sensationalized by the press. For example, the White House has flatly denied the story is true as reported, but our (long) lead doesn't mention this at all. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon Ernie. Every press account has stated that McMaster "denied" something that was not asserted in the RS accounts of Trump's breach. His words were chosen not to deny what was in the RS reports. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The president has since confirmed the reports as true. Artw (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info User:SPECIFICO and User:Artw. - I must have missed that in my eagerness to cite WP:FART. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Should very tightly shorten and place in an existing article, at least for now. This could warrant its own page if it leads to lasting major trouble for the administration or - gods forbid - it ends up causing some kind of diplomatic incident (or worse), which at the moment looks unlikely. I may be wrong, but I suspect that rightly or wrongly it will blow over.Cpaaoi (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those citing WP:NOTNEWS, it reads:
"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style."
I highlighted the two key points, as this is an ongoing story about Russia that has been in the news for months now. We also have this: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which is related. I just don't see this being a flash in the pan news story as it hasn't been "gone by tomorrow". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Trump/Russia" whatever-you-want-to-call-it (Affair? Investigation? Conspiracy theory? All a matter of POV) - is on-going. This particular incident is part of a wider picture - and it should go in there (along with congressional calls in investigate Trump/Russia - prior to this incident and presumably long after). The Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is too limited in scope for what's being brought up now - there should be an article that is larger than one incident.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we cant keep throwing things about Russia into Presidency of Donald Trump. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is not routine news reporting. Yes, it should be briefly mentioned elsewhere and described in detail here, as we usually do with notable sub-subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The citation of "wp:notnews" falls flat, as this is not a routine or simple story. It is a part of the larger issue of Trump's alleged collusion with a foreign government, which has seen sustained and in-depth coverage for several months now. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and increase scope per Neutrality and Knowledgekid87. The Presidency of Donald Trump article is too long for this article to be merged into it. There are other newsworthy incidents where Trump's handling of sensitive or classified information has been questions, such as his discussion at Mar-a-Lago, that don't have their own articles, and it would provide more context to cover them together. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. I say we keep it for now because it's very well covered. But there's a good chance the coverage will move on to other things, depending on the outcome of the investigation into Russian interference in the election. So if there are still stories being written about this in 6 months, that'd be an obvious keep. But if not, then we need to return to this discussion and determine whether this is something worth preserving. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possible redirect to Donald Trump - I do see opportunity for this article to expand. If it's something that can simply be mentioned in the Trump article, we can redirect this to that for those using Wikipedia's search bar. Cosmic Clone (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Highly notable event, extensively covered in reliable sources. For example, we have a whole article devoted to the very petty Hillary Clinton email controversy which involved far less important material, which wasn't handed over to the country's enemy no. 1. --Tataral (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Expand into something that covers more than one event, because of WP:NOTNEWS, but the overhall Trump information handling deserves an article on its own. --Gerrit CUTEDH 17:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Lasersharp (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what speedy delete criteria do you believe this falls under? Neutralitytalk 20:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should be broadened to something like Information security under the Trump administration as some mentioned. Lasersharp (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly this is not an ordinary event since it impacts the world. So, guidance on notability is found in WP:EVENTCRIT: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". --I am One of Many (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of Trump stuff falls under NOTNEWS. This one has the depth and extent of coverage to be pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm shocked that this is the NOTNEWS hill people have chosen to die on. The coverage here is not just a quick mention in a single news cycle. It's very obviously got the depth of coverage and staying power to pass GNG several times over. There are plenty of other articles that are worth blasting as simple news, but this is not one of them. ~ Rob13Talk 20:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Russia–United States relations under Donald Trump or similar. I originally voted delete. There needs to be an article on Trump-Russia ties in general, but the current title refers to a single news event. I would support merging Donald Trump–Russia dossier into this article's successor. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:N(E) ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; This is not someone farting in the forest, or even a congressman falling off a ladder and breaking his arm. This appears to be a security breach of extraordinary and historic proportions, and stands to cause significant repercussions in the intelligence operations of at least one country, and consternations among many world leaders regarding how to communicate with, and what not to share with, this POTUS. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – as legal experts have stated, this is the most serious charge ever leveled against a sitting president. Clearly, the depth of coverage is there, so nominator's argument of NOTNEWS does not suffice. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. This is obviously an enormous and notable story, with implications for domestic politics by all accounts and implications for international relations (intel sharing) per expert commentary. The story has massive coverage, with numerous experts noting how exceptional and serious it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is an overwhelming amount of in-depth, ongoing coverage for this. Many sources are predicting lasting effects, including impacts on international relations and intelligence sharing. gobonobo + c 00:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though needs a clean-up, article overall is well referenced, and whole world media is covering this scandal.Redhat101 Talk 00:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & expand scope to Information security under the Trump administration per Neutrality; highly significant as a continuation of the same pattern, as in: turning Mar-a-Lago dining area into a situation room, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is news, plenty of news sources. And, as plenty other keeps say, it is a significant event. Calicodragon (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we snow keep now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's continuing discussion on how/whether to re-name the page, but I support a snow keep. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is most definitely news and deserving of an article. It has been extensively reported by many news outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, CBS, NBC, and many others since Monday. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here's some material that can go into the article (and into an article about historical disputes between President Trump and his employees): "The highly classified information ... was collected by Israel, a crucial source of intelligence... Trump’s disclosure of the information threatened to fray that partnership... A U.S. official ... said the revelation potentially put the source at risk... Israel’s ambassador ... said the partnership between the U.S and Israel was solid." AP News. It looks like the sole authoritative official source on the dispute (Tel Aviv) says the press made it up. If so, we can "better inform our readers" by noting this. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Israel's ambassador said..." - I think that's the "diplomat" part of...well, "diplomat".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep and later possibly Merge after we know what to merge it into - Quite a bit of press, but this seems to be a pattern for Trump for mundane and routine meetings to turn into massive news stories. Every time he opens his big mouth it seems to result in yet another cascade of new pages and articles. What to do? This may need to be merged into another article at some point but at the moment I don't think anyone can know for certain where it will end up. This probably belongs in one of the articles on the Russia-Trump controversies after the initial press dies down. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice – Per this discussion, article has been temporarily renamed to Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia. Further name change is possible with a move request if/when article scope is expanded. — JFG talk 09:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The article doesn't have enough importance to create it's own page. A mention in Presidency of Donald Trump is all that is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.7.75 (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2017‎
  • Keep. This act has now reverberated around the world and has global impact for countries and intelligence services of multiple different nations internationally. Thousands of sources in multiple languages have provided in-depth analysis. Example: The head of the German intelligence oversight committee Burkhard Lischka said that if Trump "passes this information to other governments at will, then Trump becomes a security risk for the entire western world." German intelligence committee head calls Donald Trump 'a security risk to the Western world' | The Independent. Sagecandor (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Frankly, the fact that this AfD has brought so much attention from so many editors suggests it is NOTABLE and DUE and that NOTNEWS doesn’t apply. Maybe merge at some later time. Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toom Junthanit[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E Jac16888 Talk 21:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and adjust scope. The subject isn't notable, but the photograph and the story behind it very well is. (Would probably be best to merge to Public image of Bhumibol Adulyadej if it existed, though.) --Paul_012 (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:TNT. This article can only be repaired by a Thai speaker. The article is in-scope (and exists) on the Thai-language Wikipedia. It's not useful or notable enough to justify keeping the existing article in English. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already, fails WPB:1E, says was 102 years old when born, no value as stands. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gilles Vaillancourt. (non-admin closure) feminist 12:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parti PRO des Lavallois[edit]

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

Article about a political party at the municipal (i.e. city) level, without the necessary depth or breadth of reliable sourcing. The problem with municipal political parties in Quebec is that they're not generally stable entities -- as a rule, they emerge as ad hoc coalitions around a particular mayoral candidate, and tend to splinter or dissolve relatively soon after a crisis of any sort (defeat, the mayor's resignation for health or criminal reasons, any other sort of leadership contention, etc.) with a whole new political party emerging around a new mayoral candidate the next election after that. And there's just not the required depth of sourcing here either -- Laval is a suburb of Montreal, so the Montreal Gazette represents local media coverage, not the more-than-local kind that it takes to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Generally we can justify articles about the major (but not necessarily the minor) municipal parties in Montreal, because it's a major metropolis where coverage of municipal politics nationalizes on a regular basis, and so the major parties can be sourced beyond Montreal's local media -- but in Laval, the case for inclusion is much weaker. This can and should be mentioned in the article on Gilles Vaillancourt, since he was the mayoral candidate that the councillors congealed around in this instance, but there's just not much basis for a separate spinoff article as a standalone topic. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leaving aside for the moment the question of this article's notability, I'm going to disagree with one aspect of Bearcat's argument: I don't believe that coverage in the Montreal Gazette (i) constitutes purely local coverage, or (ii) would in any event be insufficient as a core base of reliable sourcing for this article. With regard to the first point, the Gazette has for many years been the primary English-language paper of record in Quebec, and its influence and readership extend far beyond merely local coverage. There's probably an inescapable subjectivity in using the terms "local" and "regional" in this context, but I would contend that the Gazette represents at least a regional paper. With regard to the second point, there is specific guideline on WP:ORG as regards the use of local media: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." There is, in fact, at least one national source (here) that mentions the Parti PRO des Lavallois – not as the focal point of the article by any stretch of the imagination, but as a significant component of an important, unfolding story. For these reasons, the article does not automatically fail to reach a notability standard. I'll also note that the party wasn't simply an extension of Vaillancourt's personality or his mayoral campaigns; it was founded well before his first successful run for mayor, and it ideology, focus, raison d'être, etc., all seem to have shifted over a period of time. That being said, I don't have a strong view one way or the other on this vote. Laval is the third-largest municipality in Quebec, and the Parti Pro des Lavallois was its dominant party for a considerable period of time. Is that enough to make the party notable? You tell me. CJCurrie (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ORGDEPTH's requirement for regional coverage is not passed just because the topic's local media has extralocal distribution — the coverage's point of origin has to extralocalize, not just the geographic range of the local media's readership. That is, a topic of purely local notability within the Gazette's own local coverage area doesn't get past ORGDEPTH just because the Gazette has readership beyond the local — the coverage's point of origin has to jump out to Halifax or Toronto or Ottawa or Vancouver before it counts as extralocal coverage for the purposes of satisfying ORGDEPTH. But the party isn't substantively enough the subject of that Globe and Mail article for it to seal the deal all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain I agree with this definition of ORGDEPTH. If the Victoria Times-Colonist (for example) were to run a story about a reasonably substantive event taking place in, let's say, Nanaimo or Comox, I think we could agree that this would constitute an instance of regional rather than purely local coverage. If the same event occurred in, let's say, suburban Langford, would a Times-Colonist story automatically fail to reach the standard of regional coverage simply because the event took place closer to the place of publication (bearing in mind that there are no other papers operating at the same level as the Times-Colonist anywhere in the Vancouver Island region)? This doesn't strike me as a fair standard – if there's only one major paper operating in any given regional market (or several papers operating in the same city and nothing otherwise), it hardly seems right that, outside of the city limits, an event's notability would increase in inverse proportion to its distance from the printing press or uploading server. Separately, I see that there has been some credible coverage of the Parti PRO des Lavallois scandal in Le Soleil (Quebec City; here) and the Ottawa Citizen (here) – these appear to be reprints/reposts of stories from Montreal newspapers, though I suspect that has more to do with historical patterns of media ownership concentration than with the geographical extent of interest in the story on the part of either publishers or readers. I'm still not casting a vote one way or the other, but I'll reiterate my view that this article doesn't automatically fail to reach a credible standard of notability. CJCurrie (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, if the event in Nanaimo or Comox were notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at all, then there's no way in blazes that the Victoria Times-Colonist would even be the only possible source for it — in the event of a terrorist attack in Nanaimo, for instance, the coverage would be Globe and Mailing and National Posting and Peter Mansbridging and Lisa Laflamming it all the way to St. John's and in all likelihood CNNing and Diane Sawyering it into the United States too. But secondly, an event is not an organization and wouldn't be covered by ORGDEPTH anyway. What ORGDEPTH is meant to cover is things like condo boards in Victoria not getting Wikipedia articles just because coverage exists in the VTC, chip stands in Stanley Park not getting Wikipedia articles just because coverage exists in the Vancouver Sun, civic advocacy organizations in Winnipeg not getting Wikipedia articles just because coverage exists in the Winnipeg Free Press, and on and so forth: companies and organizations, not events. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point on events not being covered by ORGDEPTH, but the principle is the same for organizations. If there's a group in Nanaimo that isn't obviously notable on a global level but that receives some credible coverage over an extended period of time in the aforementioned Time-Colonist, you could easily make an argument for said coverage fulfilling ORGDEPTH. I don't think it makes sense for a (hypothetical) identical organization in Langford to not be regarded as fulfilling ORGDEPTH by virtue of receiving the exact same coverage. CJCurrie (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Gilles Vaillancourt Founder and leader of this party. the move will alos provide context to enable readers to understand this Party's rise and demise "Laval’s ex-mayor faces gangsterism charges " Globe and Mail [28].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Winged Blades Godric 03:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jat Mehar Singh[edit]

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

Previously nominated for deletion by User:Onel5969 with the following reason Uncited article. Searches on News, books and Scholar returned a single hit to a single commercial website.

ProD removed now by the author Bishal Shrestha (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found he may not have good coverage in English but have quite good and reliable sources in Hindi. The subject seems some known folk poet of Haryanvi language and a martyr of Indian freedom struggle movement. require WP:FIXIT.

Sources I found,

  1. Dainik Tribune - here (depth coverage)
  2. Daily Bhaskar - here
  3. Kavitakosh.org - here (collections of his folk poems)
  4. India Today - here (short mention)
  5. Jatland.com - here (Jatland, a media wiki platform similar to Wikipedia, It is a platform solely for Jat people, article supported with reliable sources)--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against temporary restoration of this article to provide source material for an article on the Battle Bridge Estate if someone wishes to take it upon themselves to write one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birkenhead Street, London[edit]

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

Completely non-notable street. Was PROD'd in 2015 as non-notable per WP:HIGHWAY, but de-PROD'd almost immediately after without any rationale. I can find no sources to indicate that this street is notable in any way - it is merely a small street that connects to the A501 road. It is not part of the A501 (which would make it notable). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable road. The article says it is a part of the A501 road, but I can't verify such a thing. SL93 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to write delete to this ~100-metre (330 ft) long relatively minor street opposite King's Cross Station. However while digging for sources, I found this excerpt from the 1952 London County Council Survey of London and this entry in University College London's Bloomsbury Project, which cites heavily from the 1998 book East of Bloomsbury (ISBN 9780904491401) by David A. Hayes. Both provide history about the street, and those references should be enough for an article on the Battle Bridge Estate. Whether that warrants keeping a separate article on a mainly residential road is still up for discussion. Fuebaey (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the place is notable per the sources found by Fuebaey. Andrew D. (talk) 18:26, 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 (✉) 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "it is merely a small street that connects to the A501 road. It is not part of the A501 (which would make it notable).", even then, remembering that WP:GEOROAD is a guideline, without good sources, consensus could make it a merge/redirect to A501 rather than a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:MILL road, cites only poor sources.  Sandstein  14:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MILL is just an essay and, in any case, is not applicable because this place in central London. This area is extensively covered in numerous histories and geographies and so is quite notable. There is always an alternative to deleting a topic about London topography because one can simply merge up into a higher level article about the district or ward, which will usually exist and be notable. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly rename and draftify. Thank you to Fuebaey for researching possible sources. I don't think there's enough there to justify an article on the street itself, but I could see moving the current article to Draft:Battle Bridge Estate where it could serve as the start (after deleting some trivia) of an article on the estate. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG, although an article on the Estate might be warranted. Onel5969 TT me 01:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A fourth relist would be crazy even to relist on analysis of sources pointed out. (non-admin closure) J947(c) 20:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reconstruction[edit]

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

I don't think this article meets Wikipedia's standards for notoriety. Since the only citation is one magazine article from 1998, it doesn't seem very important. Maybe this material should be incorporated on the page for Berlin or German architecture instead. MusselParty (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Akhil Kumar[edit]

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

Very insignificant sources with passing mentions. No indication of notability. Mar11 (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NMODEL no significant coverage only passing mentions in the press has done no notable work to warrant an article . FITINDIA  09:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage to show notability. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Valsson[edit]

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

No evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. AaronWikia (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable hockey player, does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players. Playing for Iceland is irrelevant, they have never come close to playing in anything "such as" the World Championship or the Winter Olympics. AaronWikia (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 El Niño. (non-admin closure) J947(c) 20:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017-18 El Niño event[edit]

2017-18 El Niño event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL: For starters, the only source cited is an unreliable self-published source, and it doesn't even say that the event has begun, only that it's possible. Therefore this falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While there is nothing of substance to merge into the 2014-16 El Niño event article, I would like to suggest that we redirect this article there since technically an El Nino is already underway.11:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Rees (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to El Niño (not the 2014-16 event) per Jason Rees. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:29, 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 (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to El Niño per above reasoning until reliable sources establishing the notability of this year's El Niño appear. ~ KN2731 {talk} 11:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acting on AIDS[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced since creation in 2006 and no significant coverage found in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Passing mention here, but that's pretty much it. Should have gone the way of AfD ten years ago. TimothyJosephWood 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 considering there's no policy basis for an actual deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gur Mosheiov[edit]

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

Unsourced, no references to prove notability. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, impressive citation record. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does he also meet WP:PROF #3 as holder of a named chair at major university? The Hebrew University is often ranked in top 100 worldwide, but I'm not sure how distinguished the professorship is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I hadn't noticed that part. It's #C5 not #C3 but yes, I think HUJI is major enough. That makes an even clearer case for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Studios Marketing[edit]

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

Advertising article which fails WP:NOTADVERTISING advertising WT's markerting arm. scope_creep (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious Disneycruft that isn't needed. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even worth folding into Walt Disney Studios page. No real content to this article. Ceronomus (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/siachen-glacier-operation-meghdoot-indian-army-pakistan-china/1/927832.html
  2. ^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/siachen-glacier-operation-meghdoot-indian-army-pakistan-china/1/927832.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_May_16&oldid=1142617950"