Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 November	13 November >

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecumenopolis[edit]

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

Undereferenced for over 10 years. Consists mostly of original research. Not very many RS online, and the suitable coverage that exists would only be enough for a DICDEF. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google Books search shows this to be a widely discussed in both its architectural context, [1][2][3] and popular culture context. [4][5][6][7]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a couple of references to a reliable source, and fixed the external link; Doxiadis article on Ecumenopolis was included in Britannica Book of the Year, 1968, and his ideas on the subject are still discussed by scholars. See for example Pierre Laconte's (then President of the Foundation for the Urban Environment, Past-President and executive committee member of International Society of City and Regional Planners) paper on "The Megalopolis/Ecumenopolis challenge" at the International Congress & Forum on Urban Sustainability “City for All” (2009). ——Chalk19 (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The concept of "Ecumenopolis" is just as valid for a wikipedia article as City and is covered in a 1974, much-cited paper "Ecumenopolis: the inevitable city of the future" as well as a number of other published papers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above + also check the interwiki articles, there are more than a dozen and most of them come with plenty of references. Gts-tg (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW, WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial[edit]

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

Non-notable local memorial. Only coverage outside of local paper is one LA Times article. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets WP:GNG, plenty of news coverage and no-one has even touched upon the sources related to the local debate that happened to allocated the $210,000 expense of this structure. Its a one-of-its-kind memorial listing all American service men and women killed in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. So its hardly a local memorial, its a national memorial that happens to be in California. Its also not local coverage only, because as the nom notes it has gained national coverage. And before anyone asks, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not relevant here :P Dysklyver 12:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 12:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 12:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 12:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a national memorial with all of those fallen in the two conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan commemorated. Has reliable sources coverage including LA Times and Orange County Register which is a regional newspaper rather than local with a daily circulation of 250,000 Atlantic306 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - agree that it should be considered more than a mere local trivial memorial. It does have reliable independent sources for coverage. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per others' comments, and note that significance is asserted: "it is the only known memorial in the United States dedicated to listing by name all American service men and women killed in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq." -do ncr am 14:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Looks notable to me. I suspect there is (or will be) something incorporated into national memorials covering more wars, but that does not change things. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Has more than one article in the LA Times. Here's another Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Liverpool. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LSRadio[edit]

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

Unreferenced article (except for self citation). Cannot find any coverage in reliable sources online. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ terrestrial radio broadcasters, even student ones, are generally notable. There's a good amount of unsourced and WP:UNDUE coverage in the article, but as a whole it should stay. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep vote struck after verifying that Bearcat's analysis is correct. I take no !vote position. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Liverpool. Per WP:NMEDIA, the presumption of notability for radio stations is only extended to stations that meet all of four conditions: (1) they have a broadcasting license from the appropriate regulatory authority, (2) they have an established broadcast history of actually being in operation rather than just existing as an unlaunched paper license, (3) they originate at least some of their own programming rather than operating solely as rebroadcasters, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable as true. If a station fails even one of those four conditions, it's out. But this fails #1 (it's stated as having operated only on ham radio and the internet, with no indication that it ever had an OFCOM license to broadcast on AM or FM) and #4 (it's sourced exclusively to its own self-published content about itself with no indication of any reliable source coverage in sources independent of itself). However, NMEDIA also specifies that student media outlets which do not qualify for their own standalone articles can, if verifiable, be mentioned in the article on the university or college that operates them — and this is plainly verifiable as existing even if it doesn't meet the standards required to get a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jnatrdharmakathah[edit]

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

Article doesn't cite any sources, has been abandoned for a long time, parts of it don't make sense, it has a lot of errors, and it is not needed on Wikipedia. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm concerned about the lack of sourcing, but from what I can follow of the article it's about a notable text in a notable religion. Pending confirmation either way from an editor with more expertise in this area, I'd be amazed if sources don't exist. "Not making sense" and "having a lot of errors" are reasons to improve, rather than delete, the average article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided. The rest of my rationale above stands. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mind the spelling. Google yields several scholarly references. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a notable concept in Jainism going by 84.73.134.206's search. The argument for deletion isn't valid and is one of a number of problematic nominations made by this user recently. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above; problematic nomination and reasons (stated above) to keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SK#1 - no valid rationale for deletion. ansh 666 05:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anuttaraupapātikadaśāh[edit]

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

Article doesn't make sense and is not needed on Wikipedia. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm concerned about the lack of sourcing, but from what I can follow of the article it's about a notable text in a notable religion. Pending confirmation either way from an editor with more expertise in this area, I'd be amazed if sources don't exist. "Not making sense" is a reason reason to improve, rather than delete, the average article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided. The rest of my rationale stands as above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plenty of scholarly hits with the right spelling. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a notable concept in Jainism going by 84.73.134.206's search. The argument for deletion isn't valid and is one of a number of problematic nominations made by this user recently. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above; problematic nomination and reasons (stated above) to keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Canan[edit]

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

Mayor of a smallish city, not big enough to give an automatic pass per WP:NPOL, and no significant sourcing beyond stuff associated with his city office to meet WP:ANYBIO John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mayors of Muncie since 1996. WP:PRESERVE is a policy, and we have a nice set of three similar articles that can be merged. Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. Muncie is a large enough city that a properly sourced article with some actual substance to it would be kept, but nominator is correct that it's not large enough to hand him an automatic "must-include" freebie just because he exists. And I don't see why we would want a list of mayors of Muncie since 1996, as a separate concept from mayors of Muncie before 1996 — and even if we did keep an actual list, it would be a list, and not a compilation of merged minibio blurbs, so there'd be nothing else to merge from here besides his name and term dates.
Note that while his successor's article isn't any better (actually it's even worse), and thus will be listed for AFD shortly too, it at least cites a source which provides the names of all of Muncie's past and present mayors and thus enables the creation of List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana without having to "since 1996" anything. So this can be redirected to that if that's felt to be useful, but there still won't be anything from here to merge. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mayors of Muncie, Indiana is fine, as long as we are clear that that includes the verifiable material from these articles. Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of mayors are just lists of the names and term dates; they are not padded out into omnibus compilations of minibios of the individual mayors. And anyway, the list is at List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana, not just "Mayors of Muncie, Indiana". Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my city has over twice the population of Muncie, and we deleted an article on the man who served as our mayor for 20 years. There are not sources here to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD are policies. Why did you !vote delete? Do you not care about the work that these editors contributed to the encyclopedia? Do you not care about the work it is going to take to restore this material when the encyclopedia becomes more developed? Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation to preserve everything that gets added to Wikipedia just because somebody worked on it. There are lots of types of content that are not worth preserving — "we need to preserve this just because somebody worked on it" is actually explicitly listed at WP:ATA as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JPL, you're not a new user, you know better than this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. No matter how long they served or even served, sources matter. I agree with Bearcat about recreation as well. Excelse (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the local paper apparently not showing more than a couple of years of archives, and the Indianapolis Star being newspapers.com, to which I don't have a subscription, I was able to flesh out the article using several references. He was the first mayor of Muncie to serve three consecutive terms (and the first Republican mayor to be re-elected in over a century, and they named a downtown park after him. I believe that's adequate coverage, albeit regional, to make him notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am reading NPOL correctly, detailed coverage of his political career must extend beyond local and or detailed coverage must exist for some notability beyond politics. All you've added are stories on him being a mayor. If the NYT or even one of the Chicago rags would have a fairly detailed bio of him, that would tip it to notable. I see nothing in the guidelines to indicate that being a historic mayor or an effective mayor makes a difference. He's the mayor of a smallish city and no one outside central Indiana has made note of him. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mayors of places this size are kept if they can be shown as the subject of substantial press coverage that marks them out as significantly more notable than the norm for most mayors — every mayor of anywhere could always cite purely local press coverage, so we don't keep an article about a mayor just because it has five footnotes of local coverage in it. Dig out 30 or 40 or 50 footnotes of local coverage, supporting a really substantial article, and then local coverage would be fine — but to get a mayor of a place this size kept on just five footnotes, those five footnotes would need to represent nationalized coverage and not just localized. And having had stuff in the city named after him after leaving office isn't a notability criterion for a mayor per se — at an educated guess, somewhere between half and two-thirds of everybody who'd ever been mayor of anywhere would have a Wikipedia article if having had a street or an arena or a park or another piece of municipal infrastructure named in his honour were an automatic inclusion freebie. Party affiliation isn't even an inclusion criterion per se (not even if it ran counter to the city's usual partisan leanings, which in the case of Muncie it clearly doesn't since the list of mayors contains more Republicans than Democrats on the whole), and neither is the number of times the mayor won reelection. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While Yngvadottir makes a good point, I think the rationale's of John from Idegon and Bearcat are pretty much spot on. If he had been the first R mayor of the city, that would be another thing (or the first D for that matter). Being the first mayor to serve a certain number of terms and having a park named after them simply isn't enough. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE are policies, so even if you are correct that the new Wikipedia standard for Muncie is four terms as a mayor to be Wikipedia notable^{[sez who?]}, your !vote is not policy based. Unscintillating (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 said no such thing as "the new Wikipedia standard for Muncie is four terms as a mayor". Wikipedia's notability standard for mayors depends on adequate sourcing, not on how many terms the person served — a well-sourced article about a mayor who served just one term can be kept, and a poorly sourced article about a mayor who served ten terms can be deleted, because it's the sourcing that determines notability, not the number of terms served. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your response is a hypothetical; because your response ignores what the OP actually said, we aren't talking about the general case of articles with sourcing problems such that deletion is policy based, and notability is not a deletion argument when WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD apply. The case here, even if we agree that the topic should not be standalone, this is a problem within WP:Editing policy, and AfD is not cleanup. Unscintillating (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not ignoring what the OP actually said; my reading of what the OP said was exactly 100 per cent correct and you're the one who read something into it that isn't there. HTH. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Onel said that you are spot on and you say you are 100% correct, and now John from Idegon says, "Strict adherence to ATD would effectively render AfD moot." Looks like more than just a little bit of avoidance there of discussing policy, in an AfD in which policy dictates that no AfD discussion is relevant. Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)**To which I would add, Unscintillating, since AfD is near 100% about determining Notability, and as Notability is a guideline, not a policy, virtually any argument, whether keep or delete, is not policy-based. Further, PRESERVE is not, contrary to your insistence, policy. ATD is, however I think even rabid inclusionists would agree, if it is the only argument you've got, you essentially do not have an argument. Strict adherence to ATD would effectively render AfD moot, and as several articles are deleted via AfD daily, that is obviously not the community's desire. Effectively, your arguments do not rise above filibustering. If that's your intention, run for Senate. John from Idegon (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, PRESERVE is a policy and it is WP:DEL8 that is deletion policy. Further, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. In addition to WP:IGNORINGATD, see also WP:INSIGNIFICANCE. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The PRESERVE rule is to preserve appropriate content, not to unconditionally preserve all content — and DEL8 says that failure to meet the relevant notability guideline is a valid and appropriate reason for deletion, not that it isn't as you seem to think. You have yet to advance any actual reason why this would need to be retained besides "somebody worked on it" — John is right, you're basically just filibustering rather than contributing anything useful to the discussion. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Glad to see that you have discovered DEL8. WP:ATD is just as much as a part of deletion policy as is DEL8, so you can't cite DEL8 and ignore ATD. Sorry, but your own action in creating a new redirect target for the topic and retaining your "Delete" !vote shows that you either don't understand or don't care about making policy based !votes. And you've already alluded to your position here, which is to work to undermine the minibios concept that works against many of your deletion arguments, as well as against JPL's deletion arguments. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        "Work to undermine the minibios concept?" What the hell "minibios concept" even exists to be undermined in the first place? And neither have I "just discovered" DEL8 — nothing I've said in this discussion at all contradicts DEL8 in any way whatsoever. DEL8 is completely consistent with the position I've been expressing all along, because DEL8 says and means that failure to satisfy a notability criterion is a valid reason for deletion of an article. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zamiruddin Sardar[edit]

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

Incomprehensible. No references. Google search turns up only the Wikipedia history of this article, and no one with this name or dates, which makes it unlikely that someone else can repair this. PROD was applied but removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fixed the atrocious grammar, but it is still unreferenced and almost certainly non-notable. (The same editor has contributed significantly to Chhatwan, parts of which are likewise a trainwreck.) Agricolae (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Wasn't able to find sources in a BEFORE. Seems being the best known person in the village of Chhatwan does not confer coverage sufficient for notability.Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and expanded to show that he was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Someone like this could be suitable for an article, but requires reliable sources first. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sources available to demonstrate notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources, though online sources about this may be hard to find but the absence of even unreliable sources mentioning is very suspicious if this man even ever existed. — Ammarpad (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt he existed but he appears to have been your typical 'big fish in a (very) small pond', and non-notable no matter how well remembered by the natives of that puddle (which the creating editor seems to be). Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral Estimation of NMR Relaxation[edit]

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

Prodded as "Rather obvious promotion of own research - author's sole contribution, username is the primary cited source spelt backwards." The prod was objected to by the author on the talk page, so I bring it here.

FWIW. note 3 on the talk page seems to relate to a different subject entirely. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion of research that appears on the whole obscure. The first paper in the references has 9 GS citations, the second only 2 (since 1983!), the third 5, the fourth 43, and the fifth 47. Since neither of the latter two actually cite the Journal of Magnetic Resonance paper that supposedly established the article's subject, I suspect they were thrown in for padding. The final reference is to an OMICS journal and therefore counts for nothing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my understanding of that poorly-written article is that it is about numerical analysis of particular methods to analyze NMR outputs. This of course can explain the paper-padding. GScholar gives nothing (else) for keywords such as "spectral estimation"+"NMR relaxation". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delphine Devos[edit]

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

Very little sources. Her claim of notability (representing Belgium in Miss Universe) has now been proven to be false. Simply just a contestant in a national beauty pageant { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This articles history shows why we need more stringent processes for creating aritcles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I confirm after looking at several sources that she is not Miss Belgium, but a runner up. She did win a regional, but that's not particularly noteworthy. She's the runner up for the Miss Belgium title, but hasn't progressed to any international competitions that I can find in any sources. Many searches are complicated by the fact she shares a surname with the Belgium contest's president, Darline Devos. Regardless, I can find no sources attesting to her notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the event Devos was awarded first runner-up. If I understand correctly the organization then crowned the third runner-up as Miss Belgium and is sending that model to the global event. If Devos takes the elections awfully serious maybe she considers herself the winner now. In any case that was and is again another person. Belgium is a small country and mentions are not so few but mostly passing. The one article in which Devos starred is about winning Miss West Flanders. West Flanders isn't a state in Belgium (equivalents of states exist) but a province. Provinces in Belgium are (super-)local government. gidonb (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anait Isahanova[edit]

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

Very little sources. Her claim of notability (representing Armenia in Miss Universe) has now been proven to be false. Simply just a contestant in a national beauty pageant { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I understand, as I clicked on "news" and found [8], which states, "Miss Armênia 2017 – Anait Isahanova". How is this a hoax? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume because she does not appear on the Miss Universe website as a contestant [9] --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She was the first runner-up at Miss Armenia. Afterwards, people started assuming that she was Miss Universe Armenia. However, now all the contestants are known and in Las Vegas for the competition, while she is not there and is not on the website, clearly not actually representing Armenia. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need actual sources, not just assumptions of competition. It is time to stop assuming all contestants in some beauty pageants are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilogy[edit]

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

WP:DICTDEF would apply, only that the unsourced WP:OR article actually doesn't match the usual dictionary entry of "dilogy (plural dilogies) Ambiguous or equivocal speech or discourse. Repetition of a word or phrase. A series of two related works quotations". To be fair the term is used by urbandictionary, and by some modern sources in this sense ("smaller than trilogy"), however the entry would fail DICTDEF in any event in its current form. Trilogy "has meat" as this form of serial works has been analyzed in and of itself, something that seems to be lacking for this unused term Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Domdeparis (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that it's a synonym for duology, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also tagged it {{Disputed inline|Talk page section|date=November 2017}} since I don't know how one can say that groupings of two are especially rare. (The use of this term over duology is, in my experience). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is in relation to a planned series of books, movies etc. It might be true - most so called dilogies out there are probably failed trilogies - where the 3rd installment was not completed.Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't understand: a planned 3-part series of things that ends up being two would be a dilology and not a duology? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole rather eye-glazing thing here. I think it's more a case that dilology has other meanings that duology doesn't have: in fact, the Wiktionary page in question lists the "two part" meaning last. Anyway, delete or transwiki redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The problems with this article have been largely resolved by trimming out the BLP-violating content. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Against Antisemitism[edit]

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

The subject is non-notable. While there are a lot of sources, these are mainly sources about the area in which this organisation works, quoting a spokesperson from the organisation among other interviewees, and do not offer WP:SIGCOV of the organisation itself. The WP:ORG standard is not met (esp WP:ORGCRIT) and the WP:GNG neither. Amisom (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator) WP:GNG clearly passed with numerous mentions. Sources like [10] [11] have depth, so WP:ORGDEPTH satisfied. Clearly there's promotionalism that's happened since I created this, but I've flagged it for overuse of primaries etc, but that's irrelevant for notability per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 21:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nom User:Amisom considering this obviously meets GNG in contradiction to the nom, has WP:BEFORE even been done? Else why isn't this disruption? Widefox; talk 21:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we disagree about whether or not the article meets GNG doesn’t mean I’m being disruptive. Duh. Amisom (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amisom No, GNG is a red herring as nobody will agree with you on that (duh yourself). You didn't answer if you took any steps in BEFORE? The nom is weak as you didn't do WP:BEFORE D: "prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:"... "D: Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". Took me a minute to find multiple RS. My concern is you're attempting to delete this and a list on a related topic with weak arguments against consensus, with warnings for edit warring. It's disruption. Widefox; talk 12:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least one other commenter has so far agreed with me that the article is non-notable and should be deleted. Please stop accusing everyone you disagree with of bad things. Perhaps you might also think about not dragging other editing disputes (where I notice you haven’t bothered to engage in the discussion) here too. Amisom (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One (who hasn't replied since their argument was directly refuted). Since then the article was rewritten with multiple secondary sources. As I predicted, nobody yet has agreed about GNG. I'm only accusing one editor of failing to do BEFORE on this and other AfDs (which are closed Keep, or Snow Keep). Widefox; talk 23:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They don’t have to reply to you, you know. This isn’t a courtroom. Perhaps they’d had enough of your aggression. Amisom (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(incivility ignored). Widefox; talk 09:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t sound like you did. Amisom (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article do not fail per WP:GNG, keep and resolve the issues with primary sources. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGDEPTH. Has not received significant, in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom clearly hasn't done WP:BEFORE, there's a substantial number of sources [12] ,[13] , comprehensive article about the org [14] (powerbase is used as a ref in WP, although its status ~~isn't clear~~ is clear to me as WP:UGC/wiki - not an RS) (these are gathered at [15]) [16], [17] , [18]

So there's "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" WP:ORGCRITE: yes, GNG passed: yes. Widefox; talk 12:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure that answering back at those who don’t agree with you is helpful. Just let the consensus form. Amisom (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amisom Please familiarise yourself with WP:AFD "...directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples..." .

Done "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing,..."

Done "...the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, ... If the nominator fails to do it ..." Widefox; talk 00:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop addressing me. Amisom (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Amison's AfD request was intended for damage-limitation purposes, blocking him will have nipped that straight in the bud. Clearly the article lacks neutrality. Likewise, edits to another WP article in which my name is featured, Quenelle (gesture), also appear to be motivated by the possibility of a threat of legal action. Furthermore, the fact that my notability allows for such edits to take place on two separate articles, yet would not, apparently, be appropriate for my own WP:BLP (perhaps also because of legal issues) raises concerns regards the supposed neutrality of the encyclopaedia when it comes to certain topics. Keeping the article shines a light fully on these matters and, considering records of all edits have been safely stored, deleting would not achieve much. Alison Chabloz (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC) — Alison Chabloz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to argue but I find it very difficult. In the meantime, I have removed the Chabloz-section from the quenelle article; see edit summary. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgive me if I am responding incorrectly. I set up an account today, am quite new here and feel that the 'single-purpose account' tag is therefore unnecessary, if not downright unfair. In its previous revision, the Quenelle article section about me is far less tendentious than the section in the CAA article. Such a paragraph would never be permitted in a WP:BLP. As for notability, is it significant that my name is good for mention here, whereas Jeremy Bedford-Turner's is not? Might not there be a WP:COI in the way some editors - and as you rightly state in your Quenelle article edit - merely repeat what has already been reported in the mainstream media? Nevertheless, to cite lack of notability regards the only artist in modern history to have been locked up for singing satirical songs would suggest that the role of the encyclopaedia is, in my very particular case, to dissimulate rather than inform. Shame. As another editor stated, the CAA section concerning me goes beyond the remit of any such article. Both cases of litigation cited are ongoing and the UK Crown's chief witnesses are all involved with CAA. I hope this helps to clarify my earlier comment. Alison Chabloz (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are valid reliable sources in the article WP:GNG is meet. Also searches show there would be more sources not yet used — Ammarpad (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. It applies not only to all articles, even those not primarily about a person, but all talk pages and WP space pages. The section on the individual mentioned above is a gross BLP violation, andhas been deleted. According to policy, it may not be restored with discussion and consensus. I am amazed it was ever added; I am puzzled it was not noticed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: On the talk, I've already templated it BLP other, and listed the most obvious WP:SPA & WP:COI editor. Widefox; talk 11:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Delay[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Lack of sources. Just a regional talent HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one source and it does not appear independent or reliable: not good enough for a BLP. A Train^talk 19:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not that these are reliable sources, but at least should be mentioned [19] [20], Online World of Wrestling Profile, Cagematch, Seth Delay Book Reference, Wrestling Data, [21], [22], DVD show review, Gamespot. The book and the DVD show review is useful, and has definitely had lots of matches in his time. The book reference in particular mentions him specifically and says how good a worker he is. Should definitely check out and see if an article can be salvaged. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Most of the sources mentioned by Lee Vilenski are internet databases with no criteria for inclusion, so therefore do not demonstrate notability. The book mentioned was published by Soul Monkey Publications, which is a small publication company that will basically publish anything if you pay them. Finally, the Slam and Gamespot refs are WP:ROUTINE match results that do not demonstrate notability either. Nikki♥311 05:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable wrestler. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Saint Patrick. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the Body of Saint Patrick[edit]

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

This article is very brief, and any pertinent material here can go into the Saint Patrick article. I initially proposed a merge, but User:Artw followed me from a disagreement we were having at the Roy Moore article over to the Saint Patrick article (which he’s never visited before AFAIK) where he said at the talk page that he wants AfD instead of merge. So here we are. Deletion would be fine as long as I can put some of the material into Saint Patrick. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment thats a very weird and accusatory way of putting things. You probably want to be more WP:CIVIL here and elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, hounding seems uncivil. Do you support the deletion that you requested? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to consider this WP:POINTy AfD strike two, a third strike and I will be taking you to ANI. Artw (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article should be merged or deleted. Either way is fine with me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It is unclear if this battle occured or if it is a folk legend from the annals. Death date of Parrick is also not as definitive as laid out in the battle article. No need for standalone replica/summary of the annals.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge possibly speedy. This should not be at AfD, given the evidence of the content dispute splattered all over the place above. Anythingyouwant wants this article either merged or deleted, which are two very different results. This is an encyclopedic topic, clearly, and there is no actual rationale for deletion in the nomination. A Train^talk 19:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge speedily merge too Saint Patrick, this could have been dealt with in a simple move discussion. Dysklyver 11:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge -- My guess is that we know nothing of this, but what is in the account quoted. There may possibly be some scholarly commentary on this, though I doubt it would add much. Since the very concept of AD was devised by Bede long after the events in question, the date must also be something added later. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge speedily merge too Saint Patrick, this could have been dealt with in a simple move discussion, but I can see the nominator's point in coming here in the face of opposition.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siftery[edit]

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

Unremarkable early stage company. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources outside of WP:SPIP. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. Deleted through AfD earlier this year. Rentier (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources from TechCrunch and NewsCo are not self-promotion or self-publicity contents. Please check the references before marking this as unremarkable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokegee (talk • contribs) — Tokegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Repeated coverage from tech publications and blogs in the US and around the world within a short timeframe has been established. Please do review references, which include a mix of publications with in-depth coverage and/or notable mentions. Johnleecg (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC) — Johnleecg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiposting (company)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I see no substantial coverage of the company in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified about this AfD but I have nothing to do with the article, I think it would be uncontroversial to restore the redirect from multiposting to crossposting. --Nemo 18:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Badminton Australia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Badminton Victoria[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Badminton Australia, per nom. Not notable enough for standalone article. Badminton Australia is currently linked to this article as a See also, but it's a reasonable search term for one of the constituent bodies, too, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per Shawn in Montreal. It's a reasonable search term and related. Smartyllama (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Oxford. As Wikipedia is not a mindless bureaucracy, I'm going to go ahead and boldly close this as there is an obvious redirect target. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxonian[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIC Shrike (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Oxford. We could just delete it as it has no independent value, but it's a sensible redirect (for which no AfD is required - if you're happy with that, just withdraw and make it a redirect). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Sex assignment. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender of rearing[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:DICDEF since 2009. While I suppose there could be an article about this topic, the fact that none has been written in 9 years suggests that the topic is, so far, adequately covered in the articles in the list of transgender-related topics. Delete with no prejudice to recreation as an actual article. Sandstein 14:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 15:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:DICDEF if not expanded to a bona fide article, precisely as the nominator suggests. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary - this reads more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. It is currently a one-sentence article that merely tells us what the term "gender of rearing" means and does not cite any sources. Vorbee (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki without sources makes little sense. Wiktionary needs sources too. Sandstein 18:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Sandstein. I can imagine an encyclopedic article on the topic for sure but with no sources, there's no other conceivable result here. A Train^talk 19:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:Deletion is not cleanup. We don't delete WP:Notable topics simply because the article has yet to be expanded and adequately sourced. Also, the topic is not simply about transgender issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I alerted the following WikiProjects to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Comment. "Sex of rearing" is the more commonly used term. Our existing article Sex assignment appears to cover an awkward combination of this subject and surgical assignment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sex assignment; it seems the larger context this is best seen as an aspect of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sex assignment; it's kinda a shame because I actually think there's something to be said about this specifically. From what I gather, it's the way a child is raised regardless (although typically inline) with what the child identifies as. I feel this specific topic gets a bit lost in the enormity of the sex assignment article, but until something can be said about it, redirecting seems like the best option. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable by our readers, and verifiability is a core content policy. As per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "core content policies...are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Unscintillating (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Art of Fighting#Characters. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Art of Fighting characters[edit]

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

Another "list of [X] characters". Relies on one source, and a quick search on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up very little. It just retells the plot from the characters' point-of-view, without any creation, development and reception for the characters. Great for a gaming wiki. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The one "source" is actually the game itself. JOE BRO 64 11:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I already tried searching reception once but the problem with the Art of Fighting characters is that in the entire trilogy the Sakazaki children, Robert Garcia and King appear more than once. The only thing I could find about Takuma Sakazaki is a poll in Den of Geek since he doesn't appear much in The King of Fighters games too.Tintor2 (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect per nom. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, merge, or redirect (and where to?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Art of Fighting#Characters which appears to be a bare listing of these characters. Trimming appropriately is always a good idea, but ultimately an editorial decision. Per WP:ATD-M, there is no need, and hence no policy-based reason, to delete this content. Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Imperium (Warhammer 40,000). Merge of sourced material can be carried out from article history. ansh 666 20:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters of Battle[edit]

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

I prodded it in February, then an anon proposed a merge to Warhammer 40,000, but no discussion has occurred for over half a year. As there is no interest in merge, and the article seems unreferenced, with plot-only content, I think the next step is AfD. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You proposed a merge, one other editor agreed, nobody disagreed - why not just go ahead and merge it? --Michig (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there is nothing to merge. I didn't propose a merge, anon did it. My view is the merge doesn't help, there is nothing to rescue here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, my mistake. I agree there's nothing much to merge, but this is mentioned a couple of times in the Warhammer article, so a redirect may suffice. --Michig (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - A soft deletion by redirecting may be best, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Soft delete" has a specific technical meaning, and requires admin tools. "Redirect" does not use admin tools. Unscintillating (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Warhammer 40,000 as per Michig. BOZ (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imperium of Man where it is already mentioned. Merging to the main series page makes no sense when this is a subtopic of notable subtopic within that series which has its own article. --- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge, and where to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could probably be redirected to either for now. Both articles are massively crufty and undersourced and need some serious attention. Whether minor aspects such as this merit much of a mention anywhere remains to be proven. --Michig (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge everything) If we have articles on Space Marines and Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), then it's reasonable to have on on the Sisters of Battle too, as a comparable level of article. There are a couple of dozen Warhammer articles at least. All have just the same issue of in-universe sourcing, none of these are particularly better or worse than another. If we have more Warhammer articles than just one (or just one on each major species), then we ought to include the sisters within this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Putting on editor hat) If all these articles are equally poorly sourced then they should all be deleted. There's already two fan wikis, I think, covering this topic from an in-universe perspective in ridiculous depth. We don't need to be the third. Sandstein 11:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are something like 120 pages under Category:Warhammer 40,000. I would be happy to see all of these deleted, and replaced by one overall article and a couple of list articles (species, games, videogames). I have yet to see any article in here that has more than a couple of citations, and any general refs that aren't to SPS from Games Workshop. This is not http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Warhammer_40k_Wiki and we're not here to duplicate such.

However I think my chances of doing such a thing are about as likely as those of an Ork with a bent tinopener... Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see the merge argument but that's better handled outside of AfD. Artw (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Patar Knight and WP:ATD-M. Contra the nom's position, material that does not meet RS itself is still fine to merge into a notable article. Not everything needs a cite. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Merge to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) is more reasonable. The same is with Space Marines etc.--Abiyoyo (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) so that any relevant content can be merged once it can be sourced. Not independently notable for lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Sandstein 11:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mokokchung district. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mokokchung Metropolitan Area[edit]

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

The 2011 census mentioned neither metro area nor urban agglomeration in Mokokchung district (here). there is no development authority for this region as other metros have (eg Kolkata, Mumbai), and no official stats for this area (the 60,161 population figure is OR). This article was created with text largely copied from Mokokchung. Batternut (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mokokchung district. I'm not convinced this is a hoax to suggest deletion when an obvious redirect target exists; and/but there are no references to support keeping this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment The single source that mentions a metropolitan area, About Mokokchung district, is a copy indovacations.net, which I am rather dubious about. Batternut (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelio Films[edit]

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

Recreation of promotion of non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are insufficient independent reliable sources to establish that the subject meets any notability guidelines. TimBuck2 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter J. Cook[edit]

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

BLP Entirely based on primary sources Rathfelder (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 18:42, 05 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable author, ordinary medic.All the sources used are WP:PRIMARY, no any Independent coverage. It is just snippet of his bio on his organization, Mayo Clinic website that was created here. — Ammarpad (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slapstick (Creeped Out)[edit]

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

Seems no reason to write a full article about a single episode of this ~~internet channel~~ TV series. The (limited) coverage is about the series, not this particular programme. We wouldn't write a lengthy article about a music track based on an album review, would we?! There is already an appropriately short synopsis in the Creeped Out article, so no need for a merger. Fails WP:GNG Sionk (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an internet channel TV series, it airs on TV. It's no different to any other series having a page about an episode. BeanoMaster (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, my mistake, it's on Freeview. But it doesn't make it any more notable (apart from being more accessible). Sionk (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this should be deleted. It will progressively only go higher in viewership and is good to keep track of the episodes as they air. While you may not agree with other people adding the episodes, it's helpful information to fans and new viewers in the United Kingdom and different countries who want information. Pokkeballs17 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write fan pages, do it somewhere else. Wikipedia isn't a hosting site for fan pages. Sionk (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Energy Power Corporation[edit]

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

This seems like it would be notable, but source searches are not providing proper coverage to qualify an article. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this corporation's only activity is to operate the Hsingneng Power Plant, as implied by the article, then I don't see why we need separate articles for the power plant and the corporation. One should redirect to the other. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. A publicly-traded utility company should be inherently notable, but none of the references are reliable to support that. Ideally a Chinese-speaking contributor will do research before a decision is made. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signal 21 Records[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing short mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no working references, and the article suggests this label never achieved notability. A redirect to Richard Marx wouldn't be unreasonable, but there's isn't even enough sourcing for me to support that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [23] *might* be enough for a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeremyeyork (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Richard Marx. An obscure record label that released all of two albums before going bust. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Index of genetics articles. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Index of genetic engineering articles[edit]

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

Just come across this (which is strange in itself as I have been extensively editing this area for years). It is virtually an WP:Orphan,[24] which partially explains why. I am not sure what the purpose of the list is. Best I could find on indexes is that they were an early way of organising topics,^{[citation needed]} but categories are far superior for that purpose.^{[dubious – discuss]} We also have Template:Genetic engineering.

The main problem I have is that there is no context for any of the entries. Most of them do not really relate to genetic engineering. From the first 20 entries in A I would generously suggest three could fit in a list like this Achondroplasia, Adenoviridae and Allele if you had a large inclusion criteria. Then you have strange entries like Albino and Alcoholism. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't want a situation where indexes are suddenly considered obsolete, I use them all the time, as do many others. They are considered to be a valid type of navigational aid to be used in addition to categories, which are not 'far superior'. They are in many cases, used as a legitimate type of list and serve as an article in their own right. You may want to see Portal:Contents/Indices, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes and Wikipedia:INDICES and Category:Wikipedia indexes for more information, and note the related Wikipedia:Outlines.

That being said, I am not adverse to this specific list being deleted, but please don't talk in terms of indexes in general, most of them are very useful. I will also note that this specific list gets few pageviews [25] possibly indicative of that fact it is not being utilized in any templates or for cross linking. I actually concur with most the nomination reasoning, and unless someone wants the integrate this index properly, it is not serving any useful purpose. Dysklyver 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this through the genetic engineering topic, not indices themselves (I misspelt genetic engineering in the search bar). I wasn't even aware of these types of lists before that. I did search for other deletion discussions and looked at the wikiproject before nominating. I have no intention of personally doing a purge of "index of ..." articles (although to be honest the other ones I have seen look no better) as I am just concentrating on this topic area at this stage. As for your tags added to my above comment the citation is from this rfc which I found from the wikiproject talk page. Incidentally the wikiproject (and even Wikipedia:INDICES) gives no real indication as to their purpose. As for the dubious tag, categories are not perfect (and the genetic engineering one is particularly bad - it is on my list), but like indices they list articles relating to a topic and you have the extra organisational step of sub categories so you can more easily narrow down the article of interest. I am curious as to what you use indexes for though? AIRcorn (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I followed your link to the portal and found Index of genetics articles. It is pretty much an exact copy of this article. I would guess this article was copied from that one with no thought as to what is actually genetic engineering. If this is the norm then I may have to rethink my intentions regarding indices, although that would have to be at another venue. This should be a pretty uncontroversial deletion now though. AIRcorn (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In principle, List-class articles are fine per WP:CLN; list articles allow for alternative classification and possible annotation relative to categories and navboxes. So I would argue keep for this article, except for the fact that it seems redundant with Index of genetics articles and some of the terms don't directly relate to genetic engineering, such as altruism. Of the two, Index of genetics articles is the more accurate list. Hence delete, with no prejudice to re-creation if someone wants to create a proper list of genetic engineering-specific articles. --Mark viking (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Index of genetics articles; I agree there's not enough distinction to justify two articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viper Recordings[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to locate significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company with a stable of equally non-notable artists. Article is a directory with next to no content. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails notability guidelines and overly promotional / fancruft with an incredible amount of nn singles listed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article has no prose, and filled up with tables, even which are unreferenced, delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minecraft#Multiplayer. Content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 11:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mineplex[edit]

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

Not notable, a server for a popular video game. It's listed as how some server can be exploitative, but nothing in-depth about Mineplex, likewise for "Top 5 Best Minecraft Servers" and a mention as "the most popular Minecraft server" is another listing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of mentions in the VGRS search, and the Guinness Book of World Records citation is interesting. This topic is worth a mention somewhere. It's a merge or possibly a weak keep for me, and definitely not a delete. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should remove this. Someone is probably going to make the article again in a few months anyway.

Mineplex is well known. It has many search results. It's not like we're advertising it. Also, Guinness World Records is a perfect source and that is why we should keep the page. I think we can watch this page get some references over time. All the information is correct in the article.

These sources I've given say that Mineplex is a Minecraft server. "Here's how exploitable servers can be" is a source mentioning Mineplex.

Mineplex doesn't really need a citation for being a Minecraft server anyway. You can clearly connect to it with a client. This isn't any Minecraft server that has been set up in 5 minutes and needs players. Mineplex is the one of the world's most popular Minecraft servers.

I think it deserves a page on Wikipedia. One day, someone in the future will be told about it and they will look it up here.

It's in Minecraft magazines. Let's keep the page but just warn people that there aren't many sources. We shouldn't delete this. Many YouTubers (with 10m subscribers) play Mineplex as well.

As I am writing this, there are over 2,000 players online right now. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi @Ashlandsimpson,

Thanks for your contributions. That someone might recreate an article is not a reason to delete it. That it is "well known", has over 2,000 players or being played by many YouTubers isn't a reason to keep it. Keeping or deleting an article is based upon whether or not an article's subject is notable, and in fact we do need a citation of it being a Minecraft server, so it's good that it's there. But I don't believe that stand-alone notability is proven at this point; it exists in the context of Minecraft, but there's no mention of Mineplex on the article of Minecraft. @Izno, I'm guessing this isn't the only well-established server, is a subsection in the multiplayer or development section about specific servers an idea? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the search, it pops up in context of a couple other server farms regularly. I think I saw one or two articles dedicated to Mineplex, so a section or a couple sentences seems warranted. --Izno (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I want Wikipedia to improve. Everything needs contributors. This is what open source projects are about.

That someone might recreate an article is a reason NOT to delete it. Also, Mineplex is a Minecraft server and a very popular one. Guinness World Records wouldn't bother with MyFactionsServer created in 5 minutes.

Mineplex isn't Johnny's server when his friends come on. It is a good part of Minecraft.

I don't think we should delete this page. I think we should keep it or we could put a section on the Minecraft page about Mineplex. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As a matter of clarification about keeping an article because someone else might otherwise create it again: If an article on a topic that doesn't qualify for inclusion is created multiple times, it is not only deleted multiple times, but it eventually ends up protected so that no one can create it again. We also have a provision for the speedy deletion of articles created after having been deleted as the outcome of a discussion such as this one. Largoplazo (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mineplex page should not be removed. It is not for advertising and it has decent citations. I believe you might be unaware about https://cse.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq&q=%22mineplex%22 having so many citations. I think the discussion should be closed and we should keep the page.

I've also given reliable sources like PCGamesN. Someone else said about Guinness World Records 2015. Mineplex isn't some server where the owner's friends come on and that's it. This has thousands of players. Normally, we shouldn't have pages like this but we should make a exception. I've given good sources saying that Mineplex is a gaming network for Minecraft. I've given a lot of citations as well as other people. We are not going to have 100-200 citations because Mineplex isn't an actor. Mineplex being a server is as obvious as traffic lights having green at the bottom unless tampered with.

What if someone in 50 years says to someone about Mineplex when it no longer works? They can search on Wikipedia about the information.

FUN FACT! Just in case you are thinking I'm advertising Mineplex, want to know something? I'm banned from it. The reason I'm doing this is because I want to contribute to Wikipedia. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think we should close this discussion. There are so many citations about Mineplex. This page should be kept.

There's no longer much of a reason now to delete it. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Ashlandsimpson: We usually end these discussions a week after they start, and I don't see a reason to end this one early. As for your link, I noted it myself. Unfortunately, there are not any, or many, sources treating this topic with significant coverage (multiple paragraphs dedicated to Mineplex), which is why I suggested it might be okay to reference it with a sentence in Minecraft. An article of the length that Wikipedia is currently covering the topic is however, inappropriate. You might try the Minecraft Wiki if you want to preserve the content, which is licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I believe you wanted a source to say that Mineplex is a Minecraft server. Also, these sources that I've given are reliable (according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources). One of them are PCGamesN. We now have 5.

Guinness World Records is also very reliable and has cited that Mineplex is the most popular Minecraft server network. For the subsections, I've given one to an archive of Mineplex from the Wayback Machine. I've included Eurogamer on one of the sections as well.

Mineplex has a lot going on. We shouldn't have a subsection on Minecraft about it because Mineplex might make a server for another game. If Mineplex does do that, we can go to this page and say it's for Minecraft and other game. So, it should have a page.

This discussion might get out of hand soon. I don't think people want this deleted.

I think there would be less problems if we just kept this page. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Ashlandsimpson, this is an open discussion, so please stop pushing for closing the discussion early. You made your case, it's clear that you're in favor of keeping the article, and you don't have to repeat yourself. You don't have to warn others for possible repercussions or say how popular it really is. See WP:ATA for some pointers. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Sorry about that. I am new to Wikipedia editing even if I've been a member for a while. I just need to get the hang of everything if you know what I mean.

I think I've repeated myself a little bit.

Thank you for the link by the way. I will check it out.

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3772550281.html could always be a good citation. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashlandsimpson: you've more than made your point. Somewhere in this mess is an AfD discussion, I think. Anyway, merge with Minecraft. The Guinness mention is noteworthy but it doesn't automatically warrant an article that has next to no content. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just kept saying that it should stay as a page. I don't know why it should be merged or deleted. It should be kept.

I've given a lot of citations. Some are very reliable. There are 5 to says it's a Minecraft server network.

@Beemer69 is it really promotional content? The hostnames? When you have the link to games on other articles. When you have a link to a singer's website on their page.

I've discussed the history of Mineplex as well and you've deleted that. Why is it advertising? I don't understand why it is promotional content.

Some people want this page. Many have tried making it stay by editing and adding citations. Guinness World Records was someone else's edit. There are nearly 10 citations. Does that mean it's a 10% chance of staying?

Is it suitable to merge this with Minecraft? No, it will probably have to be re-edited.

The safest way would be to keep this.

The more dangerous way would be to start merging it and everything else.

It's like you get slapped in the face for creating a good work. No support much. I don't know why I made this page.

I mean, look at it. I've got citations and people ignore the fact. Esoteric will be the best word to describe some editors.

I would appreciate for an administrator to decide whether or not the page should be deleted. <IP redacted> 12:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC) — <IP redacted> has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm just going to assume that's you, @Ashlandsimpson and you forgot to sign in. Please, you've been asked several times now to stop pushing for an early close and you are again repeating yourself over and over again. There is nothing "dangerous" going on. And please, don't call others "esoteric" because they don't agree with you. So far, you haven't provided any additional sources, and as the nominator, I haven't changed my mind. To me, Mineplex is a small detail in the world of Minecraft. But you know what, let's ask the admins @Czar:, @Sergecross73: and @Salvidrim!: what they think. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Minecraft. There's enough sourcing to verify its existence, but hardly anything else. There's very little actual content, and much of it, like listing the name of the server owners or mini-games it features, provide no content or information to the reader. (And the bit about "Block Hunt", for example, is not noted in its respective citation, let alone given any sort of sourced explanation on what it is.) With so little sourced content present, its better shown as a sentence or two in the main Minecraft article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's merge it into Minecraft. I'm starting to agree about that. It doesn't really fall into any category. Does it fall into video games? Computer programs? Movies? Songs? Albums? Places? People? No, it doesn't. I think we should put it in the Multiplayer section. I think it's ridiculous now. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Minecraft#Multiplayer looks like the best place to add a mention. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Agreed. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sources reliable, secondary sources cover the Mineplex server in any depth? If it's mentioned in sources as a prominent server, proportional coverage would be similarly mentioning the server within Minecraft's article, if it's worth mentioning by name at all. It would suffice to describe such private servers in general terms. A section dedicated to the game's servers could eventually split summary style if warranted by an overabundance of sourcing. But I see no content to outright "merge" right now. Redirect to Minecraft#Multiplayer. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to merge but I will try my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP> 10:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ashlandsimpson, you really have to remember to log in. Through your IP address people can see where you're located. It's fine if you're okay with it, but otherwise admins need to mask your IP edits. @Primefac, could you mask the IP address once more? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be the one who merges it - you can let someone else take care of it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I do log in but I keep logging out. It might be private browsing that is doing this. Anyway, can someone merge it please? Thank you. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlandsimpson, would you Please. Just. Chill. This discussion will follow its course, it will be closed according to standard procedure when the time comes, and then the final outcome will be carried out. Largoplazo (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musketeer Records[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing short mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LaReece's Pieces[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Image is a copyright violation David.moreno72 10:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the artist's article is deleted, this one could be speedy deleted per A9. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Completely non-notable, of course, as is the artist. Unreleased and permanently shelved, and therefore reeks of WP:PROMO. LaReece is under AfD discussion, and both articles were created by the same editor. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam kashyap[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography. Barely avoids CSD, barely. —Guan aco 09:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG as searches yielded nothing Independent. I intended to move it back to draft space, but I understand this is possible autobiography, big possibility. All references are link to his social media pages and same username as article and the tone of the article prove this even more — Ammarpad (talk)
Delete no independent references or claim of significance Atlantic306 (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable autobiography with primary sources as references. MT Train^Discuss 16:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Nyttend, CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Cables[edit]

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

Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luckey's Club Cigar Store[edit]

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

Wafer-thin sourcing outside the company's own website. Promotional tone, and the content is essentially a monograph by a WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I ran a search of Newspapers.com, targeting Eugene. I don't see any indication that this was a 19th century business; it was originally called "THE CLUB Cigar Store," it seems. Looks like a GNG fail from where I'm sitting, this coming from an Oregonian who loves cigars... Carrite (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Almost everything in the article is cited to the club's website and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Ad Orientem, CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiat Talaba Arabia Pakistan[edit]

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

This is not popular enough a topic to be given a place in wikipedia Elektricity (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy by request of creator/agreement at AFD. Giant Snowman 12:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolin Größinger[edit]

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

Isn't notable per WP:NFOOTY – hasn't played in a fully-pro league and hasn't played senior international football. References are only routine coverage and don't satisfy WP:GNG.
PROD was contested by Postcard Cathy with the argument "She is in a senior team, as far as I can tell." This is true that she is part of a senior team (on club and international level), but she has not played in a fully-pro league and she has not played for the senior national team. --SuperJew (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (from page creator) - I thought the fact she was on the national team would fit WP:GNG, didn't realize there were separate guidelines for football players. I will hold this article until she either, makes an appearance at the 2018 championships, or does something that warrants notability. Toreightyone (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: As the creator has asked for deletion too, is there a way to speed the process (and userfy the page)? --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy seems likely they'll play for Austria soon, after which they will be notable. But they aren't right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naam (2017 film)[edit]

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

No indication of satisfying film notability guidelines. Films that are not yet released are only notable if production has been notable, and nothing in this article indicates that production has been notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per Robert McClenon and also as the one who tagged it in the first place.Bingobro (Chat) 10:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 Revdel'd. What we have here is what was, originally, a perfectly reasonable redirect (to Sky Kids magazine) that was hijacked by an IP-sock to create a hoax article. There is, it turns out, apparently also an app by this name. Given that the article as it stands is a hoax, I am going to G3 it, restore the original redirect, and then protect it so the IP-sock can't do it again; if the app itself is notable, the article can be reformatted to be about it using the normal editing process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Kids[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedy-delete-tagged, apparently as "There is no such television channel", but at 01:25, 12 November 2017‎ User:Metropolitan90 added a "hangon" message "this appears to be an app, not a TV channel; the article appears to be erroneous rather than a hoax". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a (not especially notable) app of that name happens to exist is a coincidence - this page was created by a long-running sockpuppet (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/GMTV Chart Show) who makes repeated fantasy claims of defunct TV channels relaunching, or non-existent channels entering the market. A 'Sky Kids' channel has been a persistent focus for them for many years, with nonsense claims to that effect being spread across other articles (e.g. Template:Children's channels in UK & Ireland) for the best part of a decade. The article isn't 'erroneous' or mistaken - every claim it makes is 100% untrue. If the app of the same name were considered notable enough to have a WP article then it would have one by now, but this article is certainly not the basis for it. I think it's fair to call it a hoax, plain and simple. Bonusballs (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete rationales here were stronger and actually provided analysis of the article and the sourcing, so while numerically it was close, I don't see a strong argument advanced by those advocating to keep it: notability may not be temporary, but consensus on it can change, so appeals to previous AfDs without explaining why the rationale was still valid hold little weight. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Trust Council[edit]

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

Not notable, fails notability requirements, fails WP:V. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are third party and reliable. Though some could be added as extra sources. Has gone through an AfD in the past that passed Keep treshold I see. I have to agree with the past assessdments as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There were a couple of published items linked with this organisation's start-up in autumn 2009 (and I acknowledge that these were well-regarding in the Nov 2009 AfD, though personally I regard them as the normal aspirational publicity which any start-up requires to generate about itself), but there is nothing beyond that, not even any notice of its apparent demise at some subsequent point: no evaluations of its work, nothing. The only traces that I can see of this organisation are in a name-check on its former director's CV. The article introduction claims that it "create(d) frameworks for digital transactions" but is there any evidence that this ever actually happened, as in a published framework, ideally one which also attracted notice outside the organisation? My view is that this fails WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is written as a press release, references are basically only trivial mentions of global trust council. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have folded by 2012, but notability is not temporary, WP:NTEMP. Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says nothing about the group other than that it once existed and that a certain Andre Laperriere was affiliated with it. There's almost nothing to verify, and I'm not convinced it was ever notable. Apart from its website being broken, how do we know the group no longer exists? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Here are sources already listed in the article or previous AfD: this article, this article, and this article. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 06:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that it went AfD before is not valid reason to keep it. The sources used at last AfD are also brought here again, this is evidence of Temporary notability since no new source are found since 2009 at last AfD and real Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Second; this article is clinging to inherit Notability from ~~notability~~ mentioning of its directors on websites. Out of the entire 3 sources, 2 are used to reference directors only 1 referenced the subject of the article per se. Deeper look at what the source contain reval no more than mere mention. Hence since Notability is not inheritable this article virtually has no Independent source addressing it directly. Third, One sources is already dead and these are the only sources forwarded since last AfD almost a decade. Using attached news sources to this AfD, I can't find any thing like WP:SIGCOV to warrant keeping this permanent stub falling short of all WP:GNG standards. This is non notable company that only exists and WP:E≠N — Ammarpad (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Global Challenges Foundation. Consensus to merge following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Challenges Foundation Prize 2017[edit]

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

Coverage of this one year-old contest is limited to a single article on Reuters (note that the references section cites a number of media outlets but, in all instances, they are simply syndicated copies of the one Reuters article). Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Global Challenges Foundation - not enough to warrant its own article Burley22 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Global Challenges Foundation; there's not enough to justify two articles on this group. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Challenges Foundation, plus article is too promotional in tone. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Global Challenges Foundation. Informative article but merge is a good choice. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Attractors Audio House[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - that's a lot of notable artists for a non-notable label. There's not much out there on the label, certainly. The best I found was [26], and that's a sales site. The "official" site was unrelated to the topic, so I removed it. This may be as close to an official site as exists, or maybe their Facebook page. One of their most promoted artists is Glenn Jones, but the current Wikipedia link is to a different artist. This deserves more investigation, but I'm not convinced enough to vote keep yet. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Artists linked therein aren't entirely notable names either just because they have articles, most of which are poorly sourced. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ribbon Entertainment[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; source searches are not providing suitable coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Boersma[edit]

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

The article lacks any indepdent, reliable sources. All sources are either non-reliable or overly connected to Boersma. There is also no sense that her work rises to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think she's TOOSOON and hasn't done enough to get good critical reception. There's some hits in HighBeam, but they are mentions. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no third-party sources, minuscule filmography, and far too many red links in the article. Her one big effort (Fling) came and went nearly a decade ago, and has all of one review on Rotten Tomatoes. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayu Kotono[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial website and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a poorly sourced article on a pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Born[edit]

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

An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Being quoted in the local media is not a claim of significance. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is mostly passing mentions and WP:SPIP sources; samples: The Evolving YouTube Economy: Why AdRev Acquired DashGo -- SonicScoop-Mar 2, 2015 -- In an interview with SonicScoop, Ryan Born, CEO of AdRev, provided a deeper look into the move, and some sharp insights on how YouTube ... (link, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diarmuid Griffin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is an Australian rules football biography but he doesn't meet the subject specific notability criteria at WP:NAFL and nor does he have significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. He also played a bit of Gaelic football but as far as I can tell not to a level that would pass WP:NGAELIC.

This article was previously at AfD in 2012 where there was no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet SSG or GNG. Flickerd (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anar Baghirov[edit]

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

There is some notability, but overall looks like failing WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some potential sources in Russian here. I don't have the time to go through them now (my Russian is rather rusty because it's over 40 years since I passed my A level) but maybe someone else who reads the language can take a look. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for me Russian is a mother tongue, so it was quite easy to take a look and I always search for Russian references in case of a topic coming from Russian speaking areas. Most of the articles there are not about him, but cases he was part of. And since notability is not inherited, I don't see any support for a claim there. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that. You've saved me the job of having to read those sources myself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the coverage nor his posts are at a level that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asma Rahim[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:PROF not notable doctor Chantrises (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely route to a pass of WP:PROF appears to be criterion 4. Can anyone find evidence that her textbook is widely used in Indian universities? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong her book is not popular and not used in any University checked it she fails PROF 4 her book was only published this year 2017 Principles and Practices of Community Medicine.It was earlier published in 2008 but failed .She has written only 1 book.Chantrises (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that her textbook has been widely used, cited or reviewed. No other indications that the subject passes WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture Expo[edit]

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

No indication of passing WP:NEVENTS Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. All fifteen sources are reliable and pertain to the article and its contents. Most of the sources are from radio station and newspaper websites, including the Boston Globe.^[1] I have discovered multiple comic book convention Wikipedia articles that only have five or less sources, and do not meet the required guidelines for notability, yet they are still live on Wikipedia. A handful of these comic book conventions are defunct small-town conventions with no known celebrities as guests. The Pop Culture Expos are still active, every celebrity guest is a household name, the events are mentioned in countless articles on the internet, and are run by celebrity, Gary Sohmers. The March 2017 show was also the last public appearance made by Batman (TV series) actor, Adam West before he died in June 2017.^[2]^[3]^[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknrollhippie (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

^ "Adam West: still Batman after all these years". Boston Globe. Retrieved 29 October 2017.
^ "Comic Con organizer is glad he brought TV's Adam West to Hanover". Enterprise News. Retrieved 28 October 2017.
^ "Comic Con draws thousands of fans to Hanover Mall". Patriot Ledger. Retrieved 29 October 2017.
^ "Southcoast Comic Con returns to Hanover Mall". Wicked Local Hanover. Retrieved 29 October 2017.

Delete -- promotionalism only and significant RS coverage not found. Sources are passing mentions, local sources not meeting WP:AUD and / or of WP:SPIP nature. Fail WP:NORG / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Bulletin[edit]

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

Claims to be the largest/2nd largest/5th largest/first/most-read/fastest-growing (phew...) in various genres. Well, the website called HinduBulletin exists; but that's about it. No reliable (or even unreliable) sources exist to back the exceptional claims made. The source mentioned within the article is a dead link and almost seems a probably made-up title simply to clear the new page reviewers. Fails notability. Lourdes 05:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello The Bushranger, hope you're doing well. Might I request you to, rather than re-listing, consider closing this Afd as per the procedure listed under WP:SOFTDELETE? Warmly, Lourdes 04:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One relisting is customary for discussions that have had no or little comment, and two is usually done. Only at that point would a WP:SOFTDELETE be customary if there has yet to be any discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the reply The Bushranger. I understand what you're saying. I believe that the February 2017 Rfc and the subsequent addition of the words, "If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD," have modified the procedure that administrators should use to close such Afds. In other words, it is an attempt to minimize the usage of even one re-list. Warmly, Lourdes 01:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried the one source offered and got The content you are looking for has been removed on legal advise. No other independent coverage has been identified. DailyVisitors.org indicates more modest traffic figures than the article: Hindubulletin.com has rank 594,727 in the world's top most visited websites ,with an estimated 283 daily visitors per day.: Noyster (talk), 09:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may have been a good PROD candidate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. The site has an alexa ranking of 1000000 worldwide so not "top 20000" (40000 in india though). Galobtter (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tobechi Nneji[edit]

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

Subject of article is known for only WP:ONEEVENT and fails to meet-up to WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as she has not receiced significant coverage in reliable press and also has not being discussed with WP:INDEPTH. Subject of article is merely discussed in relation to her WP:ONEEVENT, which was a reality Tv show she participated in, but did not win, as she was evicted from the show.Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have received plenty of coverage in Nigerian sources. I don't think the 'one event' argument applies as she is primarily notable as a radio host. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Michig. Darreg (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she received more coverage as a Radio personality than the TV show. And the sources are majority reliable established papers. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LaReece[edit]

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)

Non-notable Rapper. WP:TOOSOON. 'refs' are all links to where you can buy records on amazon etc, and a search revealed nothing of note to demonstrate notability [27] — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This person is very notable she is a rapper that needs a wikipedia page she was signed to Columbia and Loud records then she got drop when her unreleased album didn't released also she was featured in songs with Bone Thugs-n-Harmony member Krayzie bone and the ex wife of Krayzie Bone. Simon Webbe was managing her and was in Blue an english band song bubblin what has 12 million views on youtube and on other wikipedia pages other famous rapper have sources to amazon so why this wiki can't have sources to amazon this wiki should not be deleted. Interview with Billboard and LaReece bio when she was in the group l.a.d.e — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendar 1214 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is the fifteenth time that the editor has submitted an article about, or related to, the subject. The past fourteen attempts were rejected due to lack of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines at WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. David.moreno72 11:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and sourcing is a joke. No albums or singles released, only backup appearances, and she's been out of the game for nearly fifteen years. Notability is not inherited; Felecia from Mo Thugs also worked with Krayzie Bone and she doesn't warrant an article either. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article do not need to be deleted y'all is a joke she is a rapper and its a lot of rappers that been out of the game that albums or songs that haven't been released and they have a wikipedia and don't have many sources on their articles so it should not be deleted. 11:32, 14 November 2017 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendar 1214 (talk • contribs)

@Brendar 1214: Please read Other Stuff Exists. Other similar inappropriate articles existing does not automatically mean this one can exist too. People do not "have a Wikipedia", they have a Wikipedia article about them, if they merit one. In this case, it appears that this musician does not merit one. Please read the notability guidelines listed at WP:BAND, and if this person meets at least one of them, please indicate which one and any independent reliable sources you have that indicate that. I would add that if you see any other articles that are not appropriate sourced or do not indicate notability, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion. As this is a volunteer project, often many inappropriate articles get through. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the user I replied to above is the page creator. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brendar 1214: Resorting to personal attacks like "y'all is a joke" isn't going to help your cause, not that there's one here to begin with. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well I read the notability guidelines WP:BAND and this person met 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself Which includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries which she was interviewed by billboard back in 2001 in Billboard Magazine and 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. Which she performed live on BET with Krayzie Bone and performed Bubblin with british band Blue on TOTP (Top of the Pops) in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaeWright (talk • contribs) 10:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — TaeWright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@TaeWright: If that's the case, then none of them are in the article, which consists mostly of amazon.com pages where music this person participated in is for sale. Interviews do not establish notability as they are primary sources. No one denies this musician performs with others, but what is needed are sources not associated with this musician that discuss her in depth. Notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing quite as frustrating in AfD discussions then when someone says that scores of sources exist for a subject. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" -- why aren't they in the article, then? Yeah, she performed on a few BTnH singles, but that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. She is simply not notable on her own merit; zero albums or singles of her own released. Oh, and I also can't help but wonder if TaeWright is a sock of Brendar (who is fighting tooth and nail to keep this article), since this is the only edit of a brand-new account. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a sock is likely (different styles of writing). In any case, if these sources exist... could you please list them with links TaeWright?— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

User has been blocked as a sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brendar 1214. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's some suggestions here on how to improve the article, which might include a rename. All of that can be done without further AfD involvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education segregation in Mississippi Delta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

essay entry, reads like someone's thesis, was not deleted as it should have been after 2010 afd, at best find a suitable merge target Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Delete. Note previous AfD was overturned at DRV to no consensus. This article lacks sources all together in some POVish sections, overall fails WP:NOTESSAY, and should probably not be standalone from an overall segregation article for Mississippi.Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Modified to neutral assuming rename + rewrite done as proposed below by Rhadow.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep unless someone can suggest a merge target. This is a poor article, but it does have academic sourcing. It is actually more about the desegregation process. Possibly restructuring it as Education in Sunflower County, Mississippi might provide it with more context. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Let the People Decide: Black Freedom and White Resistance Movements in Sunflower County, Mississippi, 1945–1986 . All of the strong academic sourcing comes from this book. The rest of the sources are either (a) generic to desegregation in all of Mississippi, or (b) failed my efforts at verification. (I skimmed a copy of The Senator and the Sharecropper and could not find the quote.) Billhpike (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename Educational segregation in Mississippi Delta or Educational segregation in Mississippi (or similar) per Rhadow and Smmurphy. Billhpike (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge without redirect into Let the People Decide: Black Freedom and White Resistance Movements in Sunflower County, Mississippi, 1945–1986 per Billhpike. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article may not stay with the same title, but I will take responsibility to turn it into something useful. The problem with the article is that it is three book reviews, not an article. A better article would describe the context of segregation and desegregation in Sunflower and Bolivar counties (adjoining). Cleveland, MS (in Bolivar) fought integration in the the courts until this year, 2017. Closer -- If the vote is to delete, please leave me a copy. Rhadow (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree and am striking my !vote in support of the idea. I also think a different title would possibly be good (as suggested by Peterkingiron) and maybe in the meantime userfication (if that is ok with Rhadow). Once cleaned up, they can think about the best title. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to delete this one - whoch has the wrong title, is essentially an essay / couple of book reviews mostly focused on Drew (and not even the entire county!) - and start anew (with a copy pasted of whatever is useful here) then keep and hope this will happen (it did not since the last afd). HEY may be possible here (couple with a rename) - but you need to do it first!Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Icewhiz -- It's easier to be critical than creative. Rhadow (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I admire creativity, but in this case there is some legwork to be done.Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 15 November 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 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the developing ideas are not quite what I suggested. I would support them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne Topp[edit]

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. Strongest claim is an ongoing minor role in The Goldbergs (2013 TV series). Coverage in relible sources is passing mentions with links to further coverage only in non-reliable sources.

Previous CSD-ed and PROD-ed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to The Goldbergs (2013 TV series), in anticipation that the actor may later become Wikipedia-notable. The mention in Smosh is unworthy, supported only be a youtube link. The appropriate Wikipedia:Alternative outlets is http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2425775/. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Topp has quite the sizable filmography list. Wikipedia:The GNG and notability for actors

*WP:ENT allows that notability may be considered if the actor has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but does not mandate that the subject must also always meet the GNG.

* WP:ANYBIO states that winning a notable award or receiving multiple nominations for such awards shows notability... as long as the assertion is properly WP:Verified in reliable sources. It does not also demand meeting GNG.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderHovanec (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne has not played any roles of significance, as judged by an independent source commenting on him playing a particular role.
Shayne does not appear to have won any notable awards:
- Shayne_Topp#Awards_and_Nominations contains no indication that these awards are notable. There is not Wikipedia article even mentioning these awards. Dear_Lemon_Lima#Release appears to claim coverage of winning "the LAFF award", but this award is not defined, and of the proffered sources, one is broken and the other contains no mention of Topp. Whether LAFF means Laff (TV network) or Latin American Film Festival, neither contain any mention of Topp. The apparent claims fail verification, let alone secondary source coverage.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Third party sources have been found, and Topp has a sizable filmography with a number of notable roles. 117Avenue (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But none are suitably sourced, so WP:NOTPROMOTION applies. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not that anyone knows who Nadine Rose Mulkerrin is, but why does this small time actress deserve an article, when Topp has clearly accomplished more? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think of it as confusion between WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Actors in movies and TV are easily verified. They get brief mentions in reviews of the movie or TV show. Few, though, get specific treatment by reviewers, and so are not notable. Small role TV sitcom actors are at the boundary of what gets included as biographies, and people seem to ignore IMDb as the better resource for actors. Both Shayne and Nadine, what sourceable commentary is there to say about them, beyond simple facts? The article says Shayne won a 2009 Jury Prize, but the source says nothing about Shayne, just two adjectives for his character. I think all these characters, and fact collecting for TV shows, belong at IMDb, and should only b covered by Wikipedia where there is independent secondary source coverage that contains at least two sentences of commentary about the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep a redirect isn't appropriate. As a person active in the entertainment industry with a decent resume, it's simpler to give the benefit of the doubt to keep the article, at least for now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. He has some coverage in news and won awards. (though we may not call it "significant"). Also there are more sources not currently used in the article. He met some requirements of WP:ACTOR — Ammarpad (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has roles in many notable films. EMachine03 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manotej (actor)[edit]

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

No significant coverage, basically fails GNG. Lacks reliable sources to verify the subject. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 02:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. FITINDIA 06:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anya's Lyric[edit]

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

A self-published book with no independent and reliable coverage. Dial911 (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's also a strong flavor of COI about the article, and the one on the author. In over a year, the only edits it has attracted are spamming and its reversion. Anmccaff (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation This page is far from complete and needs a lot of work. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a pure advert complete with likely CoI and one-day-only SPA editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable book. I can't find any mention of this book in reliable sources, not talk of review or significant reportage. Fails all criteria of WP:NBOOK and doesn't even look like it will — Ammarpad (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Swiss Open Grand Prix Gold[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Lack of GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable sports event. You should work on it first before nominating for deletion. There are a lot of articles on google that support GNG.Stvbastian (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High-tier sports events like this are definitely notable. Yet another questionable badminton AfD from this user. I'm getting tired of it. Smartyllama (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree to the both above. Really annoying AFDs from one and the same user. Florentyna (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable event, next time you try and do another one of these, check before putting it up. Matt294069 is coming 11:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After multiple relistings for absence of consensus, the last relisting resulted in an overall narrow consensus in favor of keeping the article. From an editing standpoint, substantial improvement is still needed. bd2412 T 15:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Busan Foreign School[edit]

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

The subject is not notable (fails NCORP and GNG) and likely will not become notable in the near future.

This article moved into draft space by SwisterTwister after I PROD'd it. Legacypac decided to submit the stale draft rather than let it be G13'd so I sent the draft to MfD. PMC has since moved the draft back to the main namespace so that the article faces and up or down AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I accidentally made a duplicate nomination for this just now. I'll be deleting it shortly, but my rationale is copied over below:

Procedural nomination as a result of a clusterfuck. I don't have an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not.

On Apr 9, Chris troutman applied a PROD tag to this article. On Apr 10, SwisterTwister moved the article (an established, 8-year-old article) to draftspace without discussion, with zero explanation in his edit summary or elsewhere (without even removing the PROD tag, which was done by another editor). The article sat in draftspace without improvement from SwisterTwister or anyone else for six months until it was discovered as a stale draft on Oct 19 by Legacypac. Legacypac submitted the draft for approval through AfC, and it was declined shortly after by Chris Troutman. Chris then nominated the article for MfD, where only he and Legacypac participated in the discussion. Rather than relist the MfD today, I returned the article to mainspace today for it to be discussed at AfD, like it should have been back in April when SwisterTwister apparently wished to contest the PROD in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: You are incorrect. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer a valid rationale; an RfC determined the consensus is against presuming schools are notable. Please be honest that you're forwarding an ILIKEIT rationale. If other editors agree with you they can admit to having capricious logic, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not "incorrect". Any of us who regularly participate in AfD school discussions know how controversial this whole thing is and how many of us believe some editors are misinterpreting the RfC. Also, please don't accuse an experienced editor of dishonesty or I shall assume that you are making a personal attack and act accordingly. You should know better. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The classic circular reasoning to keep a school-article because in the past we have kept a school article because in the past we kept a school-article etc. etc. And no, that consensus what you are claiming is gone. The Banner talk 19:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC summary states, "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES...is an accurate statement of the results". Unscintillating (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the full quote: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. The full quote says something less positive than your selective quote. The Banner talk 20:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. I found a few mentions in news sources, but nothing substantial. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing precedent of keeping secondary schools. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It continues to astound me that we're willing to give free advertising to a non-notable business simply because that business operates a school for teenagers. If this were a store (or even an unaccredited private college!) we wouldn't be having this discussion. Pburka (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - My argument is consistent with OTHERSTUFF only in the sense that I'm arguing that, since we apply WP:GNG and WP:PROMO to all other topics, we should apply them to secondary schools. Pburka (talk)
Keep. This school's existence and information about it is confirmed so it passes a pillar policy WP:Verification ("all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy"). Until we made a comunity-agreed consensus or policy that there's an urgent need for deletion of verified subjects or pending damages without its existence, there's nothing to argue about here. Trampton (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand, Trampton. Are you suggesting that all articles about verified subjects should be kept, regardless of notability? That's what your comment seems to suggest. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per note 2 of the GNG, very likely to be government reports about the school which show notability. Also other third party sources exist which are not mentioned on the page including this news report and this magazine article. Neither extensive, but indicative that other sources likely to exist. JMWt (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP and GNG. Secondary schools do not have the presumption of notability simply because they exist. This includes government reports which are not third-party sourcing that independently covers the topic. The school must be significantly covered by independent reliable sources as defined by guidelines and policies. Government reports are primary sources. Also, the two sources mentioned do nothing to demonstrate notability.

The first article discusses war preparation [28] and does not show why this school is remarkable. The second source is passing mention with puffery and promotional language [29]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:NOTPROMO. Claiming that the RFC inconclusive is nothing more than a poor attempt to circumvent the facts. The Banner talk 19:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked to this below, but also putting it here since it directly addresses your point: when questioned on-wiki about this, one of the closers admits that the actual close was no consensus [30] and the rest was simply commentary. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a comment has been left by Iainmacfarlane at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Busan Foreign School, requesting deletion of the article (although not on policy grounds). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I left this comment for Cordless Larry he suggested that I put it here. Hi Cordless Larry, Thank you for linking my discussion about the Busan Foreign School wikipedia. As an educator I appreciate the work that dedicated volunteers of Wikipedia do to store and disseminate knowledge. As a principal trying to run a school, I find this whole experience frustrating, time consuming and serving no purpose. Sy Lee graduated in 2016 from Busan Foreign School. Before he left he changed the web page to show himself as principal. We have corrected misinformation left by students from our own school and students from another local school. When the page was put up for deletion we were very happy. I don't see it as a page that serves the public good. You can check the school website to see relevant information about the school. You can also check the following sources: Western Association of Schools and Colleges Eastern Regional Council of Overseas SchoolsBoth organizations are well respected and have accurate information on our school. But why bother, at this point the page has so little verifiable information that it should be deleted. Thank you, [[User:iainmacfarlane|Iain Macfarlane}} —Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hum. That puts a different slant on things. Not sure what I think now. JMWt (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the practice remains that we keep all secondary schools with a real existence. The RFC was indeed conclusive: it said there was no consensus to change the practice. It also said that it was no consensus to just say according to Schooloutcomes and leave it like that without further explanation. The reason we do it is to avoid the thousands of discussions like this, where the outcome depends only on who shows up at the AfD, It is best seen as a compromise, that we do not usually keep primary schools. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You better start reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School. The Banner talk 18:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the RFC, which states, "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES...is an accurate statement of the results". [31] satisfies WP:V#Notability. Unscintillating (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And the full quote: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. The full quote says something less positive than your selective quote. The Banner talk 00:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but my quote is succinct. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like I'm supposed to tell closers what they might consider to be the obvious: WP:N is a minor guideline that does not require sources, and cannot be invoked as a deletion argument while ignoring the policy WP:ATD. WP:V, however, is a core content policy. Unscintillating (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because many of the comments reference SCHOOLOUTCOMES which as the RFC pointed out, is circular reasoning. I would suggest that more policy-based comments would be useful in this AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: This kerfuffle over "SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer a valid rationale" is, in a word, blatherskite. If one types out "due to the fact that it is the long-standing consensus of the project that secondary schools are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of their being secondary schools, in accordance with the first of the Five Pillars that states Wikipedia is in part a gazetteer", it means exactly the same thing as saying "per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES", it's just that apparently it's been decided that using 48 words is Good but using two is Bad. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger, and trout to Black Kite for his commentary in the relist: comments such as that should always be avoided in a relist because the risk prejudicing the discussion. Wikipedia opperates on consensus, and the fact that school AfDs are still a mess 9 months after the RfC shows what one of the closers has admitted on-wiki is true: the close to the actual question asked was no consensus. Everything else was simply commentary, and WP:OUTCOMESBASED (which I helped to write after the RfC) is simply an essay on equal standing with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is not an actual policy or guideline and shouldn't be treated as such.
The best indicator of actual consensus is what we do, and we do routinely keep secondary schools. Singling schools out as the one area where our practice on inclusion somehow has to match the exact text of the notability guideline is ridiculous: we literally do it nowhere else: for corporations and organizations we jump through hoops to find ways to explain how coverage doesn't meet the the GNG (and rightly so), and in other areas such as military history or clerical biographies we routinely go by informal essays such as WP:SOLDIER and WP:CLERGY. These practices can be argued against, but so can the GNG: it does not guarantee inclusion either.
Since there is no consensus on schools currently, it is up to the participants at the individual AfDs to decide how to treat them, and appealing to the fact that we're a gazetteer and that the notability guideline also includes WP:NPOSSIBLE is fine, but thats all SCHOOLOUTCOMES documents anyway. I see no reason to discount the people who don't feel like being overly verbose as I do, when their meaning here is clear, and the justification for doing so is an essay of equal weight to OUTCOMES. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouting by TonyBallioni is a rather fishy act. There is again some blarney about acting on consensus, but should the sheer number of school-AfDs not be a reminder of the LACK of consensus? If the consensus is so clear cut as Tony states, why are there so many AfDs about schools? But your so called consensus also flies in the face of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, a school article that was deleted by an administrator of standing. The Banner talk 15:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"should the sheer number of school-AfDs not be a reminder of the LACK of consensus?" - considering it's possible that it could be a reminder that there are editors who are nominating these articles because they refuse to accept the consensus and intend to keep deleting until they manage to "reject the consensus and establish their own", no, that's not necessaily the case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could it not be a case where the defending editors try to turn a blind eye to the fact that their consensus is not there any more? And that that is, in my opinion, the reason why they turn to WP:OUTCOMES and its circular reasoning and not to a content based judgement. The Banner talk 06:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go back to what was stated at the RfC, "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES...is an accurate statement of the results". Since AfD is not a !vote count, only one editor at an AfD needs to provide further input into what would otherwise be circular logic. For example, in my !vote here I've documented a source that satisfies WP:V#Notability. Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar, where the closer notes that keeps based on "an apparent sentiment that there exists community consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable" bear very little weight. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super votes based on a no consensus RfC where the commentary was taken as the actual close are bad for the AfD process: I'm actually fine with consistent no consensus closes here, as I think it reflects where the community actually is on the topic. Relists where admins encourage users not to make arguments where approximately 50% of the community holds those views are also bad for the process, and I have and will continue to criticize any administrator or other user who makes them: Black Kite was wrong to interfere with the community process here in this way. A no consensus close of the RfC means that the status quo before the RfC holds. The status quo before the RfC was that we typically didn't delete secondary schools (and people didn't make a point of nominating them), and we simply redirected all pre-secondary schools. We did delete some secondary schools then, and having secondary schools deleted after the RfC is also not inconsistent with the status quo
The close of the RfC has falsely be interpreted as a consensus against all secondary schools being viewed as notable: that was not what it resolved as. It resolved as no consensus on the question. The fact that to delete a school you typically have to get an admin willing to ignore the opinions of 50% or more of the participants of the AfD shows how poorly constructed the commentary was, and that was likely the result of having a committee of closers that wanted to give answers rather than a simple no consensus close (I'll ping @Primefac, Tazerdadog, The Wordsmith, and Someguy1221: as a courtesy here. I very much respect the work they did, and they had a hard job, but I think that the fact that 9 months later nothing has been resolved shows that their closing commentary does not reflect community consensus, even if it was well intentioned.) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this whole school thing is smelling more and more of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT campaign to me. That's not to say everyone who !votes delete, or who participated in that RfC towards the declared closure (or even the closure itself) are acting in bad faith; they're not. But the core of this somewhere is obviously "Schools shouldn't have Wikipedia articles". (I've seen this with corporation articles too; there seems to be an automatic presumption that they're spam and should be deleted, and I've seen the literal statement with some sportspeople that if they don't meet the specific sport requirement GNG doesn't matter.). Basically something is rotten in the state of AfD, and I have to wonder whatever happened to 'the sum total of human knowledge'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through my contribution history, The Bushranger, you will see I have supported keeping school articles where sufficient sources exist. My position is not "Schools shouldn't have Wikipedia articles". By contrast, there have been AfDs where some editors argue for keep even in the complete absence of independent sources! To turn your characterisation around, their position seems to be "Schools should have Wikipedia articles", regardless of whether we have the sources to write those articles (and sometimes, regardless of whether we know they exist). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm certainly not accusing you, or anyone in particular, it's just a growing tide of feeling more than "It's Those Guys". However anybody suggesting we ignore WP:V absolutely needs to be hit with a kaiju-sized trout. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off-topic of an AfD, but basically my position is that secondary schools should have wikipedia articles. The only other possible position is that no schools should have wikipedia articles. Intermediate positions are going to show various types of bias, which is incredibly unfair to children in situations where their school would never meet the normal notability standards. We'd just have a small handful of very old and very rich schools, primarily from North America and the UK pages on wikipedia - nothing else would be notable. I don't think corporations are the same thing, because I don't think there is the same kind of urgency for children to believe that a local company employing 500 people is as important to the world in general as their school. JMWt (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat sympathetic to this argument, although it does rather assume that people connected with schools want there to be articles about them. In the present case, it seems that the school staff do not want there to be an article (see Iainmacfarlane's comments above. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me that's why we might need to have the discussion in particular cases. But that said, I'm not sure that school staff request is in-and-of-itself a decent reason for delete. It might well be that a school should have a wikipedia page, but that's practically impossible at the moment because we don't have any way to add reliable information about it. Clearly if the page is just vandalism, or being used to spread rumour, that's a problem - but again, I don't know that this invalidates the point. Perhaps this page should be deleted at the present time for those reasons and await someone who can write something that has something better to say. I'm not sure that simply !voting keep/delete really covers that scenario - perhaps arguing for deletion because the content is thin and crap not because the subject is not notable. JMWt (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After having read through the discussion on the notability of schools, I have to agree that the presumption of notability is flawed for secondary schools, at least in the United States. To begin with, any criteria that gives presumed notability only to extant institutions should be greeted with suspicion. I think we need something more than this. However in the United States, it seems to me that School Districts, and not individual schools at any level are more clearly notable. The School District I went to Warren Consolidated Schools offered many of its high school (secondary) programs as cooperative programs between multiple schools, I can think of 4 such programs the district had when I was there. Actually as a result of reading the related RfC and considering the issues involved here, I just nominated for deletion the article on the high school that is my alma mater, Sterling Heights High School. That is how committed I am to do the view that we should stop presuming notability for high schools without actual proof of reliable source coverage that is more than routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IGNORINGATD applies to schools covered in school districts. You can't argue a policy-based deletion for notability when the topic is already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The support for deletion from the school principal is the closest we could get to a BLP request for deletion in an article that is non-biographical. While some seem to think that school articles being magnets for vandalism is not an issue worth considering, I think it needs to be born in mind. The information in these articles is rarely of a truly useful kind. Beyond this, often basic info included in tables like enrollment and ethnic composition of the student body is not dated and so its relevance to present conditions is unclear. The notion that being a gazeteer requires articles on every secondary school that exists is not logical to me. For one thing, why only secondary and not primary schools in that case?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venues can be considered to be a part of the gazetteer. Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A news search brings up a number of hits that can be used to reference and expand the article; though most are in Korean. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the fact that it is the long-standing consensus of the project that secondary schools are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of their being secondary schools, in accordance with the first of the Five Pillars that states Wikipedia is in part a gazetteer. From that RfC close: Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. Searching already brings up some results, and no evidence that a look at local print media has been done. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 11:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frankly speaking, if High school's notability is to be strictly assessed with WP:GNG and WP:ORG thousands of secondary schools will have been/will be deleted. But this longstanding community consensus and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot be overridden simply to school that 1-claims to have international students, 2-mentioned in the press not once, and 3-have webpage. When outright non notable, super stub like this are depended with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES you know this school doesn't even deserve nomination at first place — Ammarpad (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, Ammarpad. You're arguing that we can't delete this article because there is an article on Lobatse Senior Secondary School. I'm sure we could find worse articles to justify keeping Lobatse Senior Secondary School, but that's not how deletion works - otherwise we would always have to start with the very worst article we could find. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry:. There are something you should understand. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a supplement of policy and Community wide consensus while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is mere essay. There is big, big difference. Second; you ignored my main argument for keep and delved into second paragraph, which is just supplement. Read my main argument and fault it. I have given 3 points why it should be kept in addition to comments like that of Ritchie333 which show there are many sources (especially non English) which can be used to expand the article. In my own personal view; all High schools should be subjected to the same scrutiny like any organization, but the Community have strongly objected to that, and Wikipedia exists because the community exists. So any community-wide consensus is sacrosanct whether we like it or not — Ammarpad (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit hard to follow your argument (which isn't split into paragraphs, by the way), but if you are referring to your arguments that the school has international students and a website, then I don't see how those facts contribute to establishing notability. I accept that press coverage would, but I haven't seen enough to convince me. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schooloutcomes is an example of circular reasoning when it is used as a keep-argument. In cases like that, people say that an article should be kept because earlier a same type of article was kept because earlier a same type of article was kept because earlier a same type of article was kept because earlier a same type of article was kept because earlier... etc. The Banner talk 15:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. State legislators are automatically notable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Riley York[edit]

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

Finishing nomination by IP 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031, whose rationale is detailed here. ansh 666 01:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a claim (although I can't immediately see the source for it) that York was one of the first law clerks in the Supreme Court, which would seem to confer a level of notability. Nonetheless, the article indicates that he "was...elected to the Washington State House of Representatives" in 1901 and 1903. Unless I'm misreading NPOL, that's a pass right there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and snow close. Members of state legislatures are well within notability guidelines at WP:NPOL. Sounder Bruce 05:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only did he serve in the Washington state legislature, this is rather one of the better sourced articles I've seen about a state legislator in a while. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cines[edit]

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

BLP no independent references Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is a full professor who has authored a number of very highly cited papers, passing WP:PROF#C1. I suspect at least some of the awards listed on his faculty page would pass WP:PROF#C2 as well. As has been pointed out to you (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Epstein, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy E. Dunlap, etc.), citations to independent sources are neither a requirement for BLPs or a valid reason for deletion. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five of his publications have over 1000 citations in Google Scholar, an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 even in a high-citation field. The nomination statement refers to a different notability criterion than the one that is most relevant to this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the requirements for WP:PROF. There are those who don't think WP:PROF should be an accepted guideline, but the giodeline has consistently stood up to challenges for over a decade now. It does not make sense to be objecting to the instances where it most obviously shows its value. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Paine Schwartz Partners pending improvement. There may be some hope for this as an article, but it is clearly not ready for mainspace. I have moved it to draft space, where it can be improved, with the caveat that it must be submitted for admin review before being restored to mainspace. To this end, I have locked the mainspace title and move-locked the draft. Of course, if the article is not improved, it will eventually be deleted as an abandoned draft. bd2412 T 05:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Schwartz Partners[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Sourcing is poor but searches reveal little that is any better. A bloomberg item noting the name change and a few others noting simple company data. Nothing of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It was in bad shape, agreed, but I've added several secondary RS to support referenced material and have removed unreferenced material. Notable due to its controversial, litigious history as well as the many recent and current investments in global food supply tech and receiving WP:SIGCOV for doing so from Reuters, WSJ and Fortune, among others. Could use more work, certainly, but given the wide array of RS available since the firms inception in 2007, there's no reason to toss the baby. Pegnawl (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - text is about predecessors and other people, not about the firm. List of investments doesn't look notable either. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Filled with puffed-up language such as "investment platform focused on sustainable food chain investing!" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Adam West: still Batman after all these years". Boston Globe. Retrieved 29 October 2017.

[2] "Comic Con organizer is glad he brought TV's Adam West to Hanover". Enterprise News. Retrieved 28 October 2017.

[3] "Comic Con draws thousands of fans to Hanover Mall". Patriot Ledger. Retrieved 29 October 2017.

[4] "Southcoast Comic Con returns to Hanover Mall". Wicked Local Hanover. Retrieved 29 October 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]