Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 May	7 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microgeomatics

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

promotional fgnievinski (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this entry? A reason should be given. (Michel Berthiaume)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.138.161 (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable synonym of indoor positioning; based on a single source: [1], [2]. fgnievinski (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources except corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete couldn't find more sources. Widefox; talk 21:12, 10 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. As many editors have pointed out, the subject is a public transportation organization for Latur, a major Indian city. Several editors argued that the article should be kept or that the content should be preserved because it is more likely than not for the public transportation organization of such a major city to be notable.

However, throughout the AfD, an in-depth investigation into available coverage of the organization was conducted, and there has been no evidence presented that a public "Latur Municipal Transport" exists. According to a few sources, it is possible bus transportation within Latur is provided by a private organization, not public. There is also a general feeling that a "Latur Municipal Transport" may have once existed; however, even routine coverage (historical or otherwise) such as bus times couldn't be found, even by one user (the nominator) who lives near the area.

While I appreciate the argument to preserve content where possible, the article is unsourced, and absent evidence of verifiability, I don't see any other outcome here than delete. The title may be redirected at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latur Municipal Transport

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

Not encyclopaedic topic. No scope for improvement as no sources are available online nor offline. None of the provided links in the references section work either. In other words no source/refs to entire article. The topic of the article can be efficiently described within the article of Latur —usernamekiran[talk] 11:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. As the public transport provider for a medium sized city this organisation is clearly notable. References are not required to be online. AusLondonder (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AfD is not cleanup. But keeping every article ever created is not "building encyclopaedia" either.

As it was mentioned in the article itself, the number of buses and ferries are considerably low. Not notable. It can be adequately covered in the article of Latur city. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: this is being a ping-pong. Would you please take a bold decision either to keep or delete the article? Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Public transport in a city of significant size. Clearly passes WP:GNG, even if sources aren't online. And AFD is not cleanup, as noted above. Smartyllama (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge--Absence of any WP:RS.Winged Blades^Godric 07:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anyone we can ping who knows WP:RS for India and can easily verify articles like this? I tried looking on Urdu and Marathi (kn) Wikipedia and did not find much. I would suggest keeping, but without any WP:RS, what if this was entirely made up? I will note that the article has been here for 7 years, yet it is not even mentioned in the Latur_district#Transport. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @David Tornheim: I am from the city near Latur. I visited Latur like 2-3 years ago, at that time there were not many ferries, just a few. They were on very limited routes too. It is definitely not notable for wikipedia article. But as I am the proposer for deletion, my comment shouldn't be considered. And my findings while I was in Latur city can't be taken as source either. I think the article should be merged in article of Latur city, with appropriate description on Latur Municipal Corporation.
The article seriously lacks WP:RS. I tried a lot to find even unreliable sources, but couldn't. Before proposing deletion, I tried to improve the article, but there is no way to improve it. I think, the article should be merged. But as it was on wiki for a very long time, and for other reasons, I could not perform a bold merger. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, and I would support a merge, if I could be sure it even exists. I could find nothing in Marathi, Kennada or Urdu by doing Google and Wikipedia searches that confirms there is such a thing as "Latur Municipal Transport" with the letter "LMT" on the buses. (Admittedly, the article on our Wikipedias in these language are very weak compared to those in English). Can you find anything? Even images of these buses? Since I don't know these languages my searches might not have been correct, but I did spend a while and was surprised I could not find anything. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: This photo on flickr is the most confusing one. It was taken on August 22, 2012. The LED panel on bus reads "Latur Municipal Corporation Transport Project". The uploader was surprised to see ads of private companies on these buses (govt offices mostly advertise for other govt schemes or awareness), one comment stated the buses are privately owned, the other comment corroborated this claim.

The article from Sakal news Nov 19, 2013; states municipality proposed to establish city bus service (not a decision).

This facebook post of clipping of same Sakal newspaper, dated May 26, 2015 (newspaper date) states that only two buses were provided to municipal corporation. So we can be sure that there was no city bus service by government (LMT) till at least April 2015. The article is obviously based on false information. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did you notice the comments at the bottom of the picture on Flickr?

Latur Municipal Corporation runs its mini buses by ACGL. These buses have ads from private bus operators on them.
This services are operated by Pushkaraj Travelles......!!
Thats why it has ads from Pushakaraj Travels on it.

That suggests that Pushkaraj Travelles is the private entity that runs it, information that was just deleted by Ninney on 4 May 2015. I was confused for a while, because I mistakenly thought that Latur Municipal Corporation being established as recently as 25 October 2011 with abbreviation "LMCG" (sounding like a stock Ticker symbol) meant it was a private for-profit corporation that ran buses for profit and possibly for other things, and I thought this was some promotional article. I have to rethink my previous approach based on that mistaken assumption. Now I see that according to our article, it is actually a new form of government of the city. So it is possible that LMT is the government entity that oversees contractors, such as Pushakaraj Travels.

Is it safe to assume you are fluent and/or can read Marathi, Kennada, Urdu and/or Hinidi? Trying to google all of these things in four different languages, none of which I know is quite a challenge--but I do like a challenge! :) Certainly interesting learning about other cultures by being able to read direct documents via Google translate.

One thing I had trouble figuring out was how to use the government run website(s) to find a public run bus system. I believe one official website is latur.nic.in (Google Translated to English) (which appears to be for for Latur district rather than Latur city), which I found from the Kannada page for Latur, kn:ವಿಶೇಷ:AboutTopic/Q61394 (Google translated to English). I would think that would help answer our question. However, when I went to that site (in Marathi) (and possibly some others), I did not see anything on a public bus system, only that the municipal corp. runs the bus stops. For that site (latur.nic.in), there is a link for "Bus reservation" (in English) that is part of Maharashtra_State_Road_Transport_Corporation which is for regional intercity rather than intracity. Our page says that it runs both intercity and intracity. Are we really sure that there is such a thing as the Latur Municipal Transport? I'm losing confidence this is a separate entity and not simply part of the MSRTC.

This might be the City's website: http://www.mclatur.org (Note: upper right has an option to read page in English), which has a copy of the budget here, but unfortunately Google translate can't translate the PDF to English. I imagine the budget should say home much money is dedicated to intercity transport and might include who the contracts are with. Pinging @Usernamekiran: and @Ninney: for this and my most recent posts preceding.

The "tenders" page lists the various departments for the City, but there is none for transportation or buses, but maybe under another department? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Yes, I've native fluency in Marathi, and Hindi. I've level 2 fluency in many languages from India, including Kannada, telugu, tamil, gujrati, and marwadi among a few others. But I can't read any of the languages except Marathi, Hindi, and Sanskrit. I'm level 3 in Urdu, but again can't read it.

I checked through all the links you provided, you are right, there are no mentions at all. While searching, I also came across Latur Municipal Corporation, which makes few blatant false claims. But I can't remove/change them without RS. I will do it once we are done with this AfD.

As you said, the MSRTC is totally a different organisation. It is Maharashtra state government's dept. It owns buses for intercity travel only, and in some tourists spots, they have guest houses too. From the sources I have been going through since past 2 weeks, all I could get was peacock words, and no mention of LMT. Some sources made passing references that the bus stop is handled by municipal body, which can be applied for the bus stop of MSRTC, which provides only intercity buses. Or the sources might be talking about bus stops for privately owned buses. Like taxi stands, government body provides place for taxi stands, where individual registered taxi drivers can park their vehicles. In this case, there should not be an article.

Actually, because the recent findings, I'm not even sure if LMT, if there was any, is still operational. While in Latur, I might have seen a private bus which I mistook for govt bus.

In any case, the article should be redirected to LMC or Latur, with appropriate content with RS there. At the least, lack of content might attract anon users to add some content which can we later verify. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Now I know who to ping when there is a question regarding those languages. :) Sounds like we are on the same page. FYI, I made this edit based on our discussion. We might want to copy some of this discussion to the talk page of one or more of the articles, or as least point to it. Regarding MSRTC, you said it is only intercity, but our article says in the sidebar "Local bus service in selected cities," so I think they do some intracity, and that might include Latur City. Of course, that article might be wrong. Did you find it stated else where that MSRTC is exclusively intercity? Also, you did say that the bus in the Fickr picture said "Latur Municipal Transport," so the author of the article might have based on it on seeing those names. Possibly the name is not a legal, corporate or other official entity but just an identifying moniker that MSRTC and/or a private entity slaps on the buses for the benefit of their customers to know that it is local bus rather than intercity. Does that sound right to you? I agree with you from my reading that it appears that many bus stops are maintained by a government entity (I think Latur District), and I too got the feeling that some or most of those stops were used by other entities, likely including private buses such as Pushkaraj Travels. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to creator of the original article. @Jazzradio: I see you are the creator of this article we have been discussing at length and that you are still around editing. Maybe you can help us out? --David Tornheim (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New discussion should continue, in spite of previous relistings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I will be more than happy to provide my assistance. :-)
I just read this primary source, and didnt find anything about intra-city. I am sure they would have boasted about it lol. As per my knowledge, not official though, MSRTC usually provide vehicles to Municipal corporations or other bodies, and traning for the employees. But the "intra-city activities" fall under the local governing body including transport. So in most of the cases they are owned and operated by local governing body.

Yes, the LED panel in the photo says "लातूर महानगरपालीका परीवहन उपक्रम" (Latur Mahanagar Palika Parivahan Upakram, Latur municipal corporation transport project). The square box on left says "city bus" in devnagiri. The board kept on dashboard/windshield says "गंजगोलाई"/Ganjgolai, a landmark from city, and an article that I boldly merged to Latur a few weeks ago. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this:

"City Bus Services

S.T. operates City Bus Service in 7 different cities of Maharashtra State. City Bus Service is operated in Nashik, Nanded, Ratnagiri, Miraj, Vasai, Nalasopara, Aurngabad & Chandrapur."

So it looks like they do some intracity bus service, as was mentioned on the MSRTC page. This is where they show the bus depots and bus stands they run. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: I think I found what we need! Look at this [3]:

"Intracity transport

'Latur Municipal Transport' is an intra-city bus service which covers almost all parts of the city and also connects to the more distant industrial suburbs. LMT (Latur Municipal Transport) intra-city buses ply throughout the city including the outskirts and connect different parts of the city and adjoining suburbs together."

Of course, there is a chance they got the information from Wikpedia... --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought it does appear to have been taken from Wikipedia. I see other site has the exact same language in other wikipedia-like articles: [4][5] [6]. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: yes, they do operate/provide service in cities, but it is owned by local body like municipality or municipal corporation.

yes, it is exactly like a previous version of either Latur or LMT page. But don't know which came first, wiki or that website.

also, the ST website doesn't mention Latur. I don't think LMT exists currently. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All three of the links given by Mr. Tornheim clearly identify wikipedia as the source of the information - there is no question about "which came first." Kuru (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for our comments and observations. I am going to go with delete, since I think usernamekiran is correct that it might have existed at one time, but if so, it probably doesn't exist any more. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion -- LMT service might have existed at one time, but there is no evidence it still exists today. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - neutral on whether this should redirect to a section in the city's article or be a standalone article, but it's a transit organization for a significant city and is thus notable; we should WP:PRESERVE this information. That it might not exist currently is irrelevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: hi. Thanks for your input. I agree with your point of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and preservation. But I am still not sure how many buses were operated by government. The only available source says two buses were provided, but they were used ones and require maintenance. The source doesnt mention if they were actually used by the corporation later. The other buses which were operational were privately owned (on limited routes, and not many ferries), so the size of city becomes irrelevant here. As it was owned by private company/companies, it isnt exactly a "public transport". I think it should be merged in the article of Latur city, with mention in Latur Municipal Corporation. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran What reliable secondary sources do we have that establish the existence (or prior existence) of Latur Municipal Transport? I do believe with much confidence based on the many observations we have and other forms of evidence that it must have existed at some point. The problem we have had all along is having no decent WP:RS, despite hours of research looking. So, I'm not sure even a redirect or any mention at another article is even appropriate, until WP:RS can be found. It is of particular concern to me that we might give the impression that a defunct set of buses is operating if it is not--misleading potential riders. If we delete all mention of it, and it does (or did) exist, then perhaps someone from Latur would show up, argue for creating the article (or other mention of it), and once again we can ask for the badly needed WP:RS. What do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim and Ivanvector: I partially agree. As I commented previously: "the article should be redirected to LMC or Latur, with appropriate content with RS there. At the least, lack of content might attract anon users to add some content which can we later verify." I think we should make a passing reference. The fact that original creator made contributions after the AfD notice was delievered to him, and yet did not comment here; makes me even more doubtful. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran: Is there any WP:RS? After all the research we did, I am not aware of any. If you believe there is,. can you provide the link(s)? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: nope. Never found any. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral ~~Keep~~ per Preserver and notability. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: per the last two comments immediately above, Usernamekiran and I have spent hours looking for WP:RS establishing the existence of the subject and we have found nothing. Can you provide WP:RS for even one site? Note: that everything we found mentioning it was copied from Wikipedia. Without any independent WP:RS, I just don't see how we can keep the article or even justify a redirect or mention in another article, much less establish notability. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim Not a single sources that isn't plagiarising Wikipedia. I tried Google, Bing, JSTOr, all those nice link at the top, I varied my serach criteria, and came up blank. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your considaration, and inputs. Some of you spent few minutes, or an hour on this issue. Whereas Mr. Tornheim has put a lot of hours in that. I invested a lot more time than anybody here. When I first came around the article, as always, my priority was to improve it. I tried that. After realising that there arent sources available now, i tried to look for newspapers. No result. Then I proposed for deletion. When Mr. Tornheim got involved, we looked futher with no results. Because of Mr Tornheim's findings, L3X1 changed "delete" vote to "neutral". I request everybody who prviously particiapted in this AfD to cast their votes again, in the light of recent findings/discussion taken place here. @Smartyllama, Winged Blades of Godric, AusLondonder, and David Tornheim:

~~Delete~~ with no redirect. I was the original proposer. If there is a breif passing reference to LMT on the article of Latur city, the lack of content might attract people from Latur to contribute to the article, later which we can improve. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--The nominator of the AfD had added a relist template prior to the expiry of a period of seven days from last relist.Since any corresponding log transclusion was absent--I have just removed the template.Winged Blades^Godric 15:46, 14 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 per consensus. Single keep comment is not supported by facts. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charli Evans

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Sources in article are primary or WP:ROUTINE. Nikki♥311 21:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. Article almost written like a promo (I just removed a claim to being "well known" for example). Side note; article was created by an account that has only edited this article and nothing else. The abundance of one IP in particular editing seems to smell of a sock but I'll leave it. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.66.24 (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide some examples? The sources in the article are primary or WP:ROUTINE. Nikki♥311 15:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – lacks in-depth coverage in multiple (or any) reliable secondary sources, and hence does not meet inclusion criteria. Citobun (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT.LM2000 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A wrestler who debutes 3 years ago. Doen't look notable: no major promotions, no major titles, no major feuds...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:30, 13 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) 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Archer

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Sources in article are WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 21:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.LM2000 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable wrestler. He is only known by his match in the CWC --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:28, 13 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) 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Royce Soble

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

WP:BLP of a photographer, which is based almost entirely on primary (her own website) and unreliable (Soundcloud clips, blogs) sources with very little evidence of the depth or breadth of reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:GNG. The only acceptable sources present here at all are the local LGBT community paper of the city where she works, and two of those three sources are just supporting that she won "Best Local Artist" in its annual reader survey -- which is not a notability claim that passes WP:NARTIST in and of itself -- and the third is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself, which is a class of sourcing that would be acceptable for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but cannot be the foundation of a GNG claim all by itself as the only reliable source in an article. The necessary quality of sourcing simply isn't here, and nothing claimed in the article is strong enough to earn her a presumption of notability in the absence of the necessary quality of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per thorough analysis of nom. The sources provided do not indicate notability, and a WP:BEFORE search shows insufficientWP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage in independent, third party sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local artist, failing WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:46, 7 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. Mkdw ^talk 22:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City of sound

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

Non-notable band with no coverage that I can find. "City of Sound" generates plenty of hits on gnews, etc...but doesn't appear to be coverage of the band itself. Claims of a mention in Alternative Press but as far as I can tell it was a paragraph long mention about being an unsigned band. The Absolute Punk "review" appears to be from a message board. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I can find no in depth coverage, fails WP:BAND. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. More search results were tracks of the same name than the band itself. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:43, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Lausanne U-21 Football Cup

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL scope_creep (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails ~~WP:NFOOTBALL~~. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. However @Scope creep and SW3 5DL: it cannot fail WP:NFOOTBALL as that refers to biographies... Giant Snowman 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that this event is notable. However, GiantSnowman is right that it can't fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Smartyllama (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reet. scope_creep (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A quick search on both google and bing turned up nothing, might simply be WP:TOOSOON, but (and I sincerely apologize if I am wrong) the worrying lack of information may make it seem like a WP:HOAX. Either way doesn't seem suitable as an encyclopedic article for now. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:40, 13 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hallmarks of Aging

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

earlier i had moved this page to draft as this page seems just a copy paste..but he did not make any change and moved it again... it looks like maker of this page published his own research.... in some para there are dead citation (that why look like copy paste) this article did not summaries topic... "Life extension" article which can explain the related topic is already there and in last look at ref he written ... clearly a copy paste error India1277 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Might even have WP:COPYVIO issues. Wikipedia already has an article on Ageing. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - this page was created by a group of students and their instructors in a college course on the biology of aging. The course centered around the review article that is the subject of this page. Individual students summarized the concepts underlying each hallmark of aging listed in the article, and wrote a section summarizing research that has been published since the article. To the best of our knowledge, the work discussed is correctly cited. This is not a report of our own research. The cutting and pasting was a result of our technical issues in entering the text from several students' sandboxes on the final day of our course, and we did not understand what had caused the page to suddenly be labeled as a draft. We hope you will not delete the page; we are open to correcting it in a way that will make it acceptable. We also note that while there is a Wikipedia page on aging, there is not one on the "Hallmarks of Aging" article. There is a page on an analogous review article entitled The Hallmarks of Cancer, so we thought it would be appropriate to have one on The Hallmarks of Aging. Thank you! Jlevinegoucher (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review this page and try again. The article you and your students have created, does not meet our guidelines for article creation, editing and reliable sources. Your students have created the article based entirely on one review article in a medical journal. You can contribute to Ageing, and create a section within that article. But we do not need a separate article entitled "Hallmarks of Ageing." SW3 5DL (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it seems that the same could be said of The Hallmarks of Cancer page. A scientific review article, particularly one published in a peer-reviewed journal such as Cell, represents an unbiased description of a broad body of research. On the page we created, we then summarized research that has occurred since publication of the 2013 Cell review, citing the individual primary journal articles discussed. While we think it would be unfortunate and inconsistent to remove this page, we could consider moving it to Wikiversity, where we have a learning project devoted to our Seminar in Biological Mechanisms of Aging and Cancer. We do not agree that our material would be an appropriate addition to the Ageing entry. We did create links to our page from two other pages, Senescence and Life Extension, that cite the Hallmarks of Aging article. Jlevinegoucher (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor quality article. Redundant and Unencyclopediac and, reads like the student project it is. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a medical journal. Reads far more like a school-project essay than an actual article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete could have been speedied per WP:A10 vis a vis Ageing. Even if that didn't exist this would need to be completely written to free it from OR etc. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 7 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) 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Reid

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

She doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. This Natalie Reid does not seem to be connected to the person whose article was deleted at AfD previously. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article from The National that I added as a reference is just about enough to provide basic verification, but other than that I am just seeing candidature notices which fall short of the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Nor does her party position seem sufficient to provide automatic notability without wider coverage in her own right. AllyD (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did consider a redirect to Scottish Socialist Party, where she is not discussed but her name is listed in the infobox along with other key people. I decided against it as the name isn't uncommon (as the last AfD of a different Natalie Reid shows), and there are mentions on Wikipedia of Natalie Desselle-Reid and Natalie Reid, wife of Ed Reid - I just felt a redirect left potential for confusion, and a dab probably wasn't needed. Boleyn (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being media spokesperson for, or chair of, a small political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL — it would be enough if she could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not a freebie that entitles her to keep an article that's parked on just one source in which she's the bylined author and not the subject. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 14 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) 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bricklin (band)

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

Non-notable band - I can't find any coverage of the band or it's members aside from a single appearance of a song in the mentioned movie. I also can't find any record of appearing on any charts. Fails WP:NBAND CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a couple sources. Unclear if it's sufficient to pass WP:NBAND. But right now the article has no sourced content at all, so nothing to merit keeping either way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and long inactive band. Search results turned up the car of the same name. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:48, 6 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) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Muzaffar

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC due to lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some improvements but there is nothing for which it should be removed. But I repeat it requures some inprovement on different places which should be sort out. AngelaRola (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC) — AngelaRola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment @Quasar G.: Considering the nomination was made 6 minutes after the articles' creation and I see no reason for WP:SPEEDY , I believe WP:BEFORE C.2 (If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article) should have been applied. Wapunguissa (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wapunguissa: I applied WP:BEFORE, and found a lack of reliable sources (only one result from a Google news search is a telltale sign) hence my nomination comment. I judged that, because of this issue with notability, the creator would not be able to improve the article to a standard that passes the GNG, even if I'd given them more time. Anyway, they can still edit the article to try and prove notability while this discussion runs its course. Quasar G ^{t - c} 23:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Quasar G.: You are right on your place that only one result is being shown in news section in Google SERP but I want to let you know that google doesn't show all websites in news section of the search result. Google only show those sites in news section that have manually indexed as news sites, in the case of Abdullah, different other blogs have published about him. If you are nominating it for deletion just because of this reason then you are doing wrong. Moreover he has huge fan base in Pakistan, different local news papers have published about him. You can point out the places in article which require more improvement I will find more reliable sources for it, but don't mark it for deletion.Toofaan12 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Toofaan12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - Needs improvement SikandarMalik (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - couldn't found anything in reliable sources which can demonstrate the notability of subject. --Saqib (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:SikandarMalik and User:Toofaan12 - both voted in this AfD - are seems like sock of User:AngelaRola. @Shawn in Montreal: can you ask for CU? if they proved to be socks, their comments should be striked out. --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment @Saqib: I don't have any concern with User:SikandarMalik and User:AngelaRola, even I don't them who they are :) Toofaan12 (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will be investigated. You also seems to have few more socks listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arslan Sheraz. --Saqib (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AngelaRola. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After further research, I agree that there seems to be a lack of adequate sources for the subject. @Quasar G.: I still had to raise WP:BEFORE when I noticed you had acted only 6 minutes after it had been created, that is sufficient for a quick search, but many music articles from legit sources don't show up on Google News. The author might be able to add more through familiarity with the subject and considering the artist also sings other languages, but I strongly recommend them to read WP:BLPSOURCES and Wikipedia:Blogs as sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wapunguissa (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mastered Trax Latino

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

Promotional article with no clear evidence of notability. Blackguard 18:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find reliable sources to show any notability. YouTube, Facebook and blogs do not count by themselves. - Pmedema (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Utter WP:CORPSPAM. I've deleted the puffery. Should have been speedy deleted really... -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Gongshow talk 18:14, 14 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRouter

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

Fails WP:NSOFT - can find no coverage or indication it meets any other criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No external refs. I couldn't find any. Fails GNG just from that. South Nashua (talk) 16:14, 9 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 16:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies

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

Individual academic departments are very rarely notable, and there is no evidence that this one is. (normally, the standard is among the few best in the world, with multiple famous professors. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability independent of the institution such that it merits a stand-alone article. Delete rather than redirect because the department name could easily be shared by departments at other institutions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sig cov justifying standalone article. Neutrality^talk 05:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 14 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 16:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Dogmatism

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

Fails WP:NALBUM for lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NALBUM. Also hard to read due to poor syntax. Author should consider contributing in their first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial thought was to look at WP:ATD alternatives to deletion, and redirect to Moein Mohammadi, the artist. However, this is a potentially ambiguous title, so I think deletion is preferable. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons listed. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 14 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 15:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Strauss (industrialist)

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

Fails WP:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources. Notability is not inherited. Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the person has an entry in Hebrew Wikipedia, he is a well known industralis and valid person for an entry and the refferences and more details about him will be addedd asapSelten99 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. https://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/81/biz_06israel_Michael-Raya-Strauss_HWNX.html--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: significant coverage online in WP:RS. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Any cursory WP:BEFORE (which you are supposed to do before AFD!) would show an abundance of sources. This is the owner (and former long-time manager) of Israel's second largest food company (and at the time - the only private company - Tnuva was owned by the Kibbutzim back then). Strauss is included today in TA-35 - Israel's leading stock index, and was a very significant company when Michael Strauss was chairman and CEO. Plenty of WP:RS available.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Icewhiz: could you link some sources? It's just that I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions, apart from Forbes. No doubt there is plenty of Hebrew material, which I will have missed because I don't speak the language and cannot analyse the sources' reliability. Quasar G ^{t - c} 15:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Quasar G.: I added some English language sources (google books actually led to some English results - when intersecting with Dairy. Michael Strauss by itself is a bad keyword) + some Hebrew. It should be well sourced enough to pass Afd. This is a major figure - not someone obscure.
    - @Icewhiz: thanks for your improvements, the Hebrew sources were key here. I'll let the AfD run its course, but he seems to pass the GNG now. Quasar G ^{t - c} 19:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Quaser G.: I'm joining into looking at Selten99's Strauss group and Ofra Strauss PROMO which created this article too. While both Ofra and Michael are significant and should pass GNG, Michael is the really significant figure achievement wise... He turned a medium sized company into a giant. Ofra, on the other hand, was groomed for the role which was handed over to her on her father's retirement and in a business sense has not really achieved much.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well sourced, apparently notable, cogent article. --Lockley (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, article is well-sourced.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:03, 14 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) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Dhiman

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

Fails WP:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails any criteria for BLP .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for holding roles in student government, and nothing here is a strong enough claim of notability to make him more notable than other student government figures. Further, the referencing here isn't strongly enough about him to confer a WP:GNG pass in lieu of not passing any subject-specific inclusion standard — it consists almost entirely of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage in which he's the subject. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 9 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) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement Remixes

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

I'd actually love to see a Wikipedia article about this topic, but there's no independent coverage about it beyond a Know Your Meme entry editorEهեইдအ😎 17:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, no independent sources, and it appears to be a copyvio of http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/replacement-remixes . There are lots of online music sites that can be used as sources for the existence of replacement remixes of particular songs, but we need sources that talk about the phenomenon of replacement remixing itself. I didn't find them, but to be honest I didn't look very hard. This is yet another "I read something on the internet so I'm going to make a one- or two-line Wikipedia article". As with the other such articles, if this survives it will only be because other editors have taken the topic over and written enough to get it to at least a viable stub. Meters (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)![reply]

Delete as per reasons above. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:46, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chellaul Corporation

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources (a news search on Google returns no results). Quasar G ^{t - c} 17:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bred 4 War

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

Fails WP:BAND for lack of sufficient independent sources. - Mr X 16:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable band that was formed just last year. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find significant coverage either; subject does not appear to meet WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow talk 03:15, 9 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. The nominator has essentially withdrawn the nomination in a comment in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ma-Tsu Temple (San Francisco, California)

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

A Google search returns many results but these are superficial mentions such as in tourism guides, or the temple's own website. I found one book, "Chinese Religions in Contemporary Societies" that has a chapter on the establishment of this temple. This falls short of multiple, substantial references though, so I am nominating on the grounds of notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A full chapter in an academic RS plus multiple tourist guides establishing its status as a notable sight should actually already suffice, but I also just found another academic book with substantial coverage (and expanded the article based on it). Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this HaeB (talk · contribs), I don't get to vote as it was my nomination, but given the additional solid reference you've added (thank you) I would happily withdraw the AfD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 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) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Muhammad Soomro

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Urdu language wikipedia article on him even has a navbox for him, with links to individual works, etc. Yet Gscholar has absolutely nothing on him in English. And when I do a Gsearch for the name in either Sindhi or Urdu, there's nothing, again. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment -- He seems to have been very prolific, but only being an assistant professor does not fill me with confidence as to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - fails NOR. Sources do not need to be online, but there do need to be sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:34, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soomran Jo Shujro

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

A non-notable book about the Soomra dynasty and/or the Soomro, created by an editor who's created quite a few Soomro family-related articles. I can't find anything on this book -- and the references on the article are of no value. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications as to why this entry should be included in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable book. --Saqib (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- an ADVERT for a NN genealogy book in a foreign language, probably Urdu. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBOOK. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:35, 8 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) f e minist 02:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Soomro

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the strongest of the Soomro-related articles at Afd that I've seen to date: there Sindhi and Urdu Wikipedia articles on him, there are at least non-reliable sources about him, he even apparently gets a passing mention in South Africa's DRUM magazine. ~~But despite this, he seems to fail both GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
Strong Keep. I did some digging and this poet meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, with sufficient coverage to support this determination (including coverage of him in The News International, the largest English-language paper in Pakistan, and the BBC World Service). In addition, well-known Sindhi poet Tajal Bewas read a paper about Soomro's poetry at the Pakistan Academy of Letters, a singular honor for a poet in that country. I have reworked the article to make it meet Wikipedia style guidelines and have added a number of citations which prove the subject's notability. I should also note that this subject has entries not only in the Encyclopedia Sindhiana but in the Sindhi and Urdu Wikipedias. If Soomra is notable enough for the Wikipedias in his main languages, let alone the Encyclopedia Sindhiana, it seems a bit silly for English-language editors who can't speak those languages to go against this. Just saying. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additions by SouthernNights have greatly improved the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I've struck through my !vote above, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 9 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Muhammad Amin Soomro

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited sources are not reliable enough. Saqib (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing on him in Gnews. Created by an editor who's created a number of Soomro family articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete wikipedia is not a webhost for family histories. This person fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Fails NOR. Three of the four sources are broken, but looking them up on archive.org, they don't seem to have anything to do with the content. The fourth source is royal ark and only discusses Mir Ali Nawaz Talpur and not Soomro. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sourced nearly well enough to get over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is a strong enough notability claim to earn him a presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrable GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A noble effort that seems to have been written in good faith, but the sources cited aren't substantial enough, or in a diverse enough array of reliable and mainstream publications, to prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 11 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) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callisto Nerayo

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

Fails WP:BIO. Possible WP:HOAX. Neither a scientist nor nutritionist. Non notable. scope_creep (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails BIO, by miles. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability, all sources are web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 15:41, 8 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 16:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynosure FC of Port Harcourt

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

Non Notable. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL scope_creep (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable football club Seasider91 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst they may have played in the Nigeria Cup RSSSF shows only that they have played third tier football in a non-nationwide division. Seems to fail WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 14 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 Marine debris. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marine plastic pollution

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

This is copied word-for-word from the cited source, a journal article. Although not a copyright violation (the journal is apparently Creative Commons), Wikipedia should not be a publisher (or republisher, in this case) of primary research reports. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. Peacock (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article is an unencyclopedic essay, and the subject is covered much better at Plastic pollution#Ocean. Quasar G ^{t - c} 13:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect, as above, this is not our job, and the article is an inferior WP:FORK of the existing Plastic pollution#Ocean and Marine debris. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marine debris. This is content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; exactly right.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 12 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 Closing per agreement between filer (me) and the student's adviser that further work will be done. Nobody else has commented.. I hope there wasn't some formal requirement that somebody other than the filer close. Somebody had better tell me off if there was. Under the circumstances, I thought it reasonable to do it myself. Bishonen | talk 09:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feminization (sociology)

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

The article seems to have been created by copypasting from academic sources in excellent English, combined with short presumably self-written bits in very poor English. Please look at this version, from before I started to remove copyvios and incoherence today. I gave up in frustration because I couldn't access the other sources, but I bet they've been used in the same way. Perhaps somebody who has access to Jstor could check out this, this, and this, to see if the relevant article sections have been lifted from them, as seems likely? The subject may be notable, but surely this article had better be deleted per WP:TNT and a new one written, if anybody's up for it. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There looks to only be two links posted, so I checked those. Offhand it doesn't look like there's anything closely paraphrased or outright taken from the articles from what I can see, but a second look from another person would definitely be a good idea. It looks like the copyvio was recently posted by a student in one of my WikiEd courses, so there should be a clean version to go back to with this edit. I agree that the topic looks like it should be notable and I think that doing a revdel of the edits back to the version I posted above would be the best option here. I'll send a version to the student and ask them to work on re-writing the content to remove the copyvio/plagiarism. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Shalor (Wiki Ed). You mean doing a revert to the version you suggest, rather than a revdel (revision deletion), I think? Good idea. I hope your student responds and gets on well with rewriting the article. It's not exactly only the copyvio/plagiarism (which needs to be rephrased in the student's own words) even though that is the most important thing, but there are also problems of coherence and grammar in the bits that aren't copyvio. Could you tell your student that as politely as possible, please — I have no tact. :-( I'm quite willing to revert the article as you suggest and withdraw this AfD, so the student doesn't have to work under the sword of Damocles. Would that be the best way of handling it, in your opinion? Bishonen | talk 23:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I was thinking of a revdel to be on the safe side, but I have no problem with just reverting the content since that would be easier for the student. I'll also approach them about the clarity of the content and offer my help with this process. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to let the student have access to their own (and others') old revisions, as material to work with (well, they can do that provided they know how to use the history to see old revisions and comments). OK, I'll close this AfD, without prejudice to starting another one at some future date, and revert the article to this version. Happy editing, all. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 7 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. Sandstein 16:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbagh Singh (singer)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Brand new singer, may make it, with WP:TOOSOON. But may not. scope_creep (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An Afd was done and concluded a month ago, please check history. This is pure bullying. You can't keep tagging a page for your personal agenda. Here's the link--> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dilbagh_singh User:Mandeep_Singh — Mandeep Singh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep According to the link above, the Afd was alreadg conducted once. Also, there are quite a few eligible links here which shows the subject's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantly Maters (talk • contribs) 17:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes Notability clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankawiki100 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Afd are already closed a month ago. It classifies on the basis of links provided. Gurdeep Kaur

Keep legit links are their. Should not be deleted. HennaSingh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.233.162 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and forbid further AfDs for six months. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 14 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) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UNIMAS Student Representative Council

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

Non-notable students' union. This article should be merged into Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this is the only good source I can find, aside from passing mentions. Not really worth merging unless the material can be sourced. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, there are no significance importance of the university's students' union. QianCheng_虔诚 08:26, 8 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) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Kittrell

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

Non notable subject with a few references to unreliable youtube and twitter. Also refs to few other unreliable websites. Notability is not inherited. Article refers to comments made on a twitter account that may or may not be written by article subject. Ar best the twitter comment is self published, at the worst it is considered unreliable because it is not known for certain who posted the comment on unreliable twitter, whether it be the subject or another party. Article and subject fails WP:GNG and has not proven N notability. Article was tagged for notability, but another editor objected and quickly removed the tag citing some alphabet tag. I have heard that failing argument before, thus bringing to AFD to attempt to gain a consensus decision from any group of editors. Antonioatrylia (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies under WP:BASIC. Brycehughes (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources provide the indepth coverage needed for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can find plenty of passing mentions, as well as gossip magazines commenting on her being transgender, but not enough coverage in reliable sources to keep the article. Fails WP:BASIC. Quasar G ^{t - c} 12:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everybody's got a YouTube channel, nothing notable here. Montanabw^(talk) 10:33, 14 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) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Scheu

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

Does not meet GNG, NGRIDIRON or NCOLLATH John from Idegon (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but will support re-creation if he plays in a professional league or if sources prove notability in the article not in this AfD.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:35, 5 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) 06:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point he fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NGRIDIRON. None of the coverage appears to be the significant (i.e., non-routine) independent variety required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:00, 11 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) f e minist 02:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet potato salad

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

Not that I can read the refs since my knowledge of Arabic is limited, but I see no claim of notability and I Wikipedia is not a recipe book TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone. In fact, this salad is very popular in the Arab world, especially in the Maghreb and in the Levant specifically in Lebanon, as you can see there are around 330,000 searches about sweet potato salad in Arabic, I know it is not notability as Fattoush, Tabbouleh and the traditional Arab salad but there are many types of Arab salads. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Well, I know that the article contains the ingredients, but I will be developing it in the future as other users will contribute to its development.--Canbel (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references are easily readable for anyone using Google Translate: they do all seem to be of the online recipe or how-to-prepare video type. Maybe see if there are book references that describe it as a notable Arabic dish. Also puzzled as to why this doesn't exist in the Arabic language Wikipedia if it's so notable--or does it? Is there a Wikidata entry for this? I can find no match. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if it an Arab dish because it is also found in the sites in English, but it is not known what is its origin, even if it is a global dish, is still an Arab recipe. The Arabic Wikipedia lacks a lot of articles. Such the Matbucha available in eight languages but not available in Arabic. I suggest renaming it to Batata hulwa salad as to pronounce in Arabic.--Canbel (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, even searching for that name, I just can't see enough significant, non-trivial coverage to merit an article, sorry. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as reliable sources are lacking. The sources cited are, as noted above, recipes and/or "how to" articles/videos. Searches turn up mentions of versions of this dish in what may well be reliable sources, but which are clearly not the Middle Eastern version. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a general, encyclopedic topic. The existence of multiple recipes out there attests to the notability of the topic; we can have an article describing what it is, without descending into becoming a recipe book. The article can/should be expanded to cover non-Arabic versions of sweet potato salad. --do ncr am 20:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed Arabic sources into English sources. A reliable source of Arabesque book.--Canbel (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfied at least one of the sources is enough to provide notability. However all the links to recipes should be removed per WP:NOTHOWTO Ajf773 (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the links to recipes.--Canbel (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as reliable sources are lacking. I like Arabic food and wanted to Keep the article if possible. It does not seem like sweet potato salad is a common dish name like the far more common "macaroni and cheese". There were too many slight variations of the term sweet potato salad in the sources given (such as "moroccan-ish sweet potato sunshine salad"). It seems like it is not a very popular/notable food dish. Knox490 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of sources available online and in cookbooks. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 29 April 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) 06:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick internet search reveals plenty of articles on the dish and/or its variants which more than clearly establishes notability; it's also a dish that someone might hear a mention of on TV or the radio and think, "What's that?" and do an internet search wanting to find the answer. Libertybison (talk) 22:05, 8 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) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammad Azhar

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

seems not a notable enough director to pass WP:FILMMAKER. directed only one film Whistle (2017 film). Saqib (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Director is a director even if he has directed one Film and Ammad Azhar is directing more films which are in the pipeline and shall be added/updated soon. Please be assure that whatever information is entered is authentic and can be proved with reference. Sorry i am new to wiki but im sure there are multiple pages regarding new directors who have made only one film. Kindly keep the page and there shall be more information updated soon. -- Soulmatrix (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)— Soulmatrix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Soulmatrix (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. per WP:SOCKSTRIKE: the puppeteer !vote should be struck as well, as per the puppet account below. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources are not independent and reliable enough to be cited. This director is not yet notable enough, its WP:TOOSOON. WP is not WP:CRYSTALBALL so when and if he direct more films, a bio will be created. --Saqib (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the article Ammad Azhar should be given a chance as the film page Whistle (2017 film) exists with all related references and artists page are also added then why not the director. Im sure more reference links can be added. Jamshamuk (talk) 1:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Comment this is most likely an autobio and the creator Soulmatrix is the subject himself. he is socking as Jamshamuk. --Saqib (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Jamshamuk is a Confirmed sock of Soulmatrix. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soulmatrix.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not independently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:48, 6 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) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rajevski

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has not played at the highest level of hockey, either for his club or national team, so WP:NHOCKEY is not met. I found no significant independent coverage of him to support any claims that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:25, 7 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 16:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Sultan( Daughter of Murad III)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murad_III already mentioned in this... no separate article required India1277 (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable, garnering mere mentions here, here, here, here. I can only assume the motive for this article is a recent TV show wherein this character is portrayed; the content should be collated with content about the show before being spun out. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Murad III). Unless she did something noteworthy an Ottoman princess (who probably spent her whole life in the women's quarters is unlikely to be notable. He appearance in a semi-fictionalised TV series does not make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I agree that there isn't much here. I see repeated mention that she married a Grand Viser and that she possessed a notable translation of an astronomy/astrology book, here (one of Christ Troutman's links). Her husband was, I think, Kanijeli Siyavuş Pasha, who also married another Fatma Sultan, but this is unclear to me. I don't think a redirect is necessary, but it might be helpful if she were mentioned at the dab page, Fatma Sultan. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:13, 8 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) f e minist 10:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Parr

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

Page Bob Parr was speedy-delete-proposed by User:Morvoren6969 as {{db-author}}, but he did not create the page, and several other people have worked on it, and it has many incoming links, and Bob Parr from the description looks somewhat noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why but the page up for AfD then? Morvoren6969 did not create the page (as you say), so that user can't request Db-g7. Can I please suggest a speedy keep? Schwede 66 09:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' shouldn't even be nominated for AfD as no reason given. Meets all the appropriate criteria for notability. NealeFamily (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as no proper reason given and meets notability standards. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per emmys. I'll trim the article, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:08, 11 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 List of Malaysian films of 2003. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MX3

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

Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:GNG as failed to find credible sources. QianCheng_虔诚 04:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QianCheng_虔诚 04:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. QianCheng_虔诚 04:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no coverage in reliable sources. This film thus fails WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FILM. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malaysian films of 2003. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not covered in RS Chetsford (talk) 06:20, 13 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 Music therapy. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sound healing

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

no apparent evidence that this is a recognized mode of therapy. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with edits. I can't review the first two sources on the current article, but don't they establish notability? One of the results on my first Google search was an embarrassingly credulous puff piece from The Guardian. This from The Telegraph was on the second page of results. A search for "sound therapy" plus "bma" found e.g. this and this. The article needs reworking to separate the science from the pseudoscience but there seems to be a real topic here at least. Mortee (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, the better title for the topic of those later sources might be 'sound therapy', currently a redirect to 'music therapy', which is distinct. If "sound healing" should be about the spiritual practice only, my impression is that it ought to be notable based on the mass of material about it online, but the sources about it are inherently unreliable (at least for normal claims; for statements such as "some believe..." they're fine). That leaves me less sure what the right approach is. Mortee (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. It seems to be an attempt to rebrand music therapy with a different name. MIght become a thing but for now it seems WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Music therapy. Good lord. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: It's not really a recognized form of therapy so a redirect seems moot. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to music therapy. This is content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to music therapy, the subject can be addressed there. If somehow this is kept, it needs to be put on the fringe theory noticeboard asap. KarlPoppery (talk) 22:46, 11 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Raee

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Article has no RS. External links are only passing mentions. Insufficient in-depth independent coverage. MB 03:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Nothing in depth at all. No wide coverage at all. He got a mention in Variety but otherwise, nothing. It's WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 06:20, 13 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of references in Overwatch

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

WP:TRIVIA - Wikipedia is not TV Tropes, and any references need to be well sourced by third-parties, otherwise this is all Original Research MASEM (t) 03:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand why third-party sources are necessary. All that they do is repeat the facts listed in the Wikipedia article. A true source would be Blizzard themselves describing these references.

By the way, List of Pixar film references does not have a citation for every item on the list, so should that article not be deleted as well?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very basis of Wikipedia is writing articles according to what third party, reliable sources can verify. It's a core piece of how we write prose, and how we determine notability. Your question is like asking "Why do tricycles have to have 3 wheels?" - Because that's what they fundamentally are by definition. Same here. Also, your Pixar article Isn't particularly a good example either - it's tagged for clean up itself. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PapiDimmi: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft/trivia, impossible to secondarily source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe such an article is possible if appropriate sources were available, but the existing article is uncited fancruft. Example: The "Jail" spray, available for all heroes, has the caption "Go directly to jail", which is a reference to the "GO TO JAIL" card in the original 1933 board game Monopoly. I mean, how stupid can you get??? WP:TNT at the very least. E Eng 04:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual sources would be screenshots or videos, but that’d be copyright infringement, wouldn’t it? I don’t get why some obscure “news” website has to repeat what the Wikipedia article says for it to be considered valid.

I wouldn’t bothered if I hadn’t have spent hours on writing the article, linking to pages, and researching. I don’t get this OR policy.

Again, why can List of Pixar film references provide facts without references?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 05:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because X said Y, and in a separate work Z said Y, does not mean X is referencing Z. It might be, it might not be. That's why we need third-party sources to make that judgement for us. I do know that we can source that Mcree was modeled after The Man with No Name from Blizzard themselves, but that's about all we can source to that extent. And again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. I do think that the Pixar film article is weak, but also to its fairness there is a LOT of coverage of Pixar's self-references in third-party sources to make such an article work. It definitely does not exist for Overwatch. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard will never verify any of this, but that doesn’t mean that the information is false. A link to PC Gamer saying that the claims are true doesn’t make much of a difference, does it?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 05:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With PC Gamer being a reliable source, yes it does as it takes out any original research associated with making that connection. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does it do that? Please explain.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 06:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Original research, fails to meet notability criteria for stand-alone lists, a clear example of fancruft, gamecruft, listcruft, and trivia. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one giant collection of WP:GAMECRUFT. This is the type of stuff we strip out of articles, let alone have dedicated articles for. We're an encyclopedia, not TV Tropes. Sergecross73 msg me 12:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced trivia. The topic does not meet GNG. The content is unsourced and undue and doesn't fit the main article to be a SPLIT. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTTRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. Only source is youtube which gives it away the whole article is original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a YouTube video not a reliable source? ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a video from a reliable source, like IGN or Eurogamer, it'd be okay. If it's just a random person who uploaded it, then it's going to fail WP:RS, WP:USERG, WP:SPS, etc. The bigger issue is probably that you're trying to source like a 50 point bulleted list with a single short YouTube video. That leaves about 98% of the article unsourced even if it was reliable. Also, no offense... but you seem have an awful lot of questions on the very basics of Wikipedia policy. It may be easier if you try to read up on these things yourself, rather than continuing to defiantly ask over and over again at this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does who uploaded it make?

Anyway, I will read Wikipedia’s policies the day I want to spend a couple years reading several billion pages on the Internet.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were making any effort to understand what people are telling you, you wouldn't have follow up questions like that. If you're not going to make an effort, your articles are just going to keep getting deleted. It's up to you. But this approach sure isn't working well so far... Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am making an effort by asking these questions. Answer them, then.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 23:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia sources need to be written by reliable sources. Since you refuse to read up on what that means - it's stuff provided by people like professional journalists. Not just any ol' random person on the internet, which is a large percentage of YouTube videos. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the “no original research” policy.

I have added multiple sources and will add more if I come across any. I’m not sure whether these sources are considered reliable, however. All they do is recite the facts provided in the Wikipedia article, which is what is expected, is it not?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 23:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither SegmentNext or Twininfinite are considered reliable sources. They don't have an established history to judge their reliability. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then what makes a website a reliable source? All they do is recite facts, so I don’t see how one website reciting facts is more reliable than another website reciting the same facts.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS -"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". For SegmentNext and Twininfinite, we don't have enough to give any idea about their reputation (and from what I've seen, they don't have much of one). We keep a list of video game-specific sources at WP:VG/S for what we've checked already. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would make Twinfinite and SegmentNext reliable, exactly? They are just reciting the facts in the article.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it currently stands, we have an unwieldy list of entries amounting to "this line is similar to that line", some of which are probably deliberate, some of which are less so, and some of which would seem to be a bit fanciful (a former manager of mine used to say "Once more into the breach" towards the end of long days, and I know for a fact she wasn't quoting Shakespeare). These claims are supported by sources of dubious reliability (per WP:RS, this is an important consideration regardless of one's personal feelings, and more so in the days of "alternative facts") and it seems as though the company responsible for the game itself won't confirm any of this anyway, reading through the discussion here, which rather damages the chances of reliable sourcing ever happening. There are other venues on the internet for such discussions of "references to stuff" to be made. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these aren’t just “similar lines.” When McCree, a cowboy-style character, quotes Western movies, you know that it’s deliberate.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you "know it's deliberate", though? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s safe to assume that a Western hero quoting Western films verbatim is not a coincidence.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems right there. First is that if we were to delete every single other reference in this list beyond the character referring to Western movies, the list becomes two entries long (there's a third entry for this character, but that relates to a nu-metal song, so that's a different case), which is then somewhat debatable as to whether it needs to stay as a separate article. Secondly, "it's safe to assume" in a situation like this is completely against the idea of Original Research and Reliable Sources. Unless and until a reliable source says that something is the case, rather than it being "safe to assume" that it's the case, it can't be written into an article here. The recent brouhaha about the Duke of Edinburgh's retirement is a good example here - there were statements floating around saying it was "safe to assume" nobody had died, but until something official had said what was going on, nothing had been confirmed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses like this make it clear that you absolutely do not understand the original research concept. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do, indeed. Am I not allowed to ask questions? I’ve already provided sources, but they’re, apparently, not reliable, for whatever reason.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have understood the concept original research, you wouldn't have written an article consisting almost entirely if it. (Honestly, it'd probably be more of an issue if you understood it, and then created an article like this. That would be knowingly breaking policy over and over and over again.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR that belongs in Overwatch wikia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it belong on the Overwatch Wikia wiki?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have a rule (WP:NOTTRIVIA) and some others (WP:GNG) and they don't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is becoming a WP:SNOW situation. Trivial and not notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: this collection of WP:FANCRUFT. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does “snow delete” mean? ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another useful link for User:PapiDimmi: WP:BLUDGEON. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not contradicting every comment. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 02:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only 75% of them, true. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people deliberately finding reasons to make me look bad? Why is responding to the comments about the article that I created a bad thing?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 14:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are doing a fine job of making yourself look bad without any help from anyone here. Are you deliberately trying to get yourself reported at WP:ANI and then blocked from editing Wikipedia? Because that is exactly what will happen if you keep bludgeoning this discussion. Please stop your disruptive behavior now. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said yourself that you haven't bothered to read the "5 million" policy & guideline pages, and your replies show the lack of understanding of policy & guideline, so it appears as if you are trying to force your stance while refusing to understand WP principles. There are a lot of policy and guideline pages, but we don't expect editors to know them all but they do need to be aware of the principle ones (namely, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP) and the shape of others (eg knowing where to look to find guidance) as part of the competence of being an editor. You're not showing that in your replies here. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was pretty much what I was going to say. Its good to ask questions, but PapiDimmi, you keep asking the same ones over and over again, and you do it so defiantly, as if you have any grounds to challenge it on, all the while actively stating that you refuse to read up on policy. You only have yourself for the negativity you receive in response to such an approach. An aggressive approach without the policy knowledge to back it up will not work well on Wikipedia. You've got to chose one or the other - learn policy, or stop being so argumentative. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And moreover, at least in the first instance, your questions have been met with answers explaining the issues the article has and addressing the concerns you've raised. It can be galling to learn that something you've spent a while on isn't the kind of thing you were "meant" to have spent that time on, and speaking for myself I know I've been there years ago and not enjoyed the feeling either. Ultimately, you have to choose either to learn and move on, or move on without learning. There are outcomes at the end of both choices. "But whyyyyyyyyy??????" really does nobody any favours as a response to the answers you've received. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I partly agree with you. I do have an understanding of most of the policies mentioned, yet I ignored them, because I really want the page which I spent hours on creating to stay.

I understand that if it violates Wikipedia’s policies, it should, of course, be deleted. It initially broke the “no original research” policy, and seemingly others as well, but I did add several sources. I was told, however, that these sources are unverified, and I don’t understand why, which is why I was asking questions.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the points you're making here (I'll italicise your comments and respond to each in turn): I do have an understanding of most of the policies mentioned, yet I ignored them. There's a problem right there. As Sergecross has pointed out, knowingly ignoring/flouting policy is worse than simply doing what you think should be done because you don't know there's a policy saying otherwise. This appears to be a recurring theme here, and it points to behaving in something other than good faith. If you think the rules are silly, you're welcome to argue against them (in another forum, certainly not here) and see if others agree (in this instance, I'd rate that very unlikely), but unless and until they are otherwise, they apply to this article as much as today's featured content. I really want the page which I spent hours on creating to stay. Understandable, but remember that you don't own the article you've written. I've suggested that it could be written somewhere else, and Piotrus has actually given a name of a somewhere else it could be written - as well as why, but you knew that already. Given that you know at least now what the rules are, and may well have known at the time that you spent hours creating the article, you can at least see why it doesn't meet the standards which will allow it to stay, can't you? I was told, however, that these sources are unverified, and I don’t understand why. And you've been told precisely why. For want of a better term, there's a heirarchy of sources, particularly in a day and age where practically anyone can create a webpage or YouTube video saying that XYZ is true. Per the applicable policy, to which you've been referred plenty of times, the sources you've provided aren't at the level they need to be in order to be reliable. In the event that there are better-quality sources, the article could be kept or re-created, but at present it looks by your own admission that there aren't, which again means the article needs to be deleted. Again, I get that this can feel like a slap in the face, and I can see that you've had similar difficulties in other places here on Wikipedia, which isn't a fun experience for anyone to have. Behaving in a manner like this when things go wrong, though, really isn't a way to deal with it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft/trivia that does not appear to have received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I am in agreement with the above delete votes/comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article easily falls under WP:GAMETRIVIA. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's starting to snow here. It's gamecruft/fancruft. Very poorly sourced, also, which doesn't help its case. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:32, 13 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Chalk

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO. Article has no independent RS. MB 03:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find this source: http://uproxx.com/webculture/americas-most-recognizable-movie-trailer-voiceover-artists-all-in-one-limo/ It does not include in depth coverage so WP:GNG is not met either, but it claims that Chalk is one of the "most recognizable voice over artists". If some one can have better luck finding the needed in depth coverage it could be kept but I wasn't able to. --Rogerx2 (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added reliable sources for some of the claims in the article. They don't demonstrate notability but I'm not !voting yet because I'm not sure what else is out there. Mortee (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, sources at least. One of them is a published book but may or may not be reliable. I included it only to validate the use of the adjective "fictional" in the sentence, though; the rest of the sentence would stand without it. Mortee (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO. Maybe he'll become more notable, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:38, 7 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 Xploration Station. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Science (TV show)

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

Article has not been updated since September 2012. It also states the show is airing on Qubo, but there are no sources cited to prove this claim. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing anything out there in depth. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xploration Station. It's a tv show which presented Animal Science as part of it's programming. KarlPoppery (talk) 01:12, 12 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.