Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 October	28 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets

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

Per WP:NOTCATALOG. This is a list of hundreds of Yu-Gi-Oh CCG releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - List of Magic: The Gathering sets also exists. Wikipedia has many such lists. It is not a list of "loosely associated topics." TranquilHope (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Except List of Magic: The Gathering sets contains many sets that have further details, this merely contains names, serial numbers, and release dates. I don't know if some of the sets here should have additional content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article should definitely have more content. I was going to add more myself, but I was busy. Even if it doesn't have more content, it would still suffice as a list. TranquilHope (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While few individual cards in any TCG are notable, sets are blocks released at once, and tend to attract commentary, establish timelines, eras in the "history" of the (meta-)game, and the like. Not even responding to notability, since the entire nomination rests on NOT. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article doesn't currently rely on good secondary sources, Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game has enough that notability is not a concern of mine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Works for me! I so much like it when AfDs are focused on one issue, rather than a shotgun approach. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I don't think this falls under any of the specified criteria. Nuke (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know I'm swimming up stream here but NOTACATALOG exists for exactly this, and WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a reason to keep. Wikipedia does not exist to document product cataloges, especailly when it's literally taken whole cloth from the corporate website. This is a prime candidate for trans-wiki to one of the numerous wikis dedicated to this sort of thing. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment the majority of the votes are for Keep. However, I am obliged to observe that no policy or guidelines are cited by the Keep votes while those favoring deletion do cite guidelines. In short, I am unimpressed by the rationals presented thus far for Keeping the article and am thus relisting to see if those arguments can be improved or more delete votes appear. See also WP:NOTAVOTE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with power~enwiki's original rationale (WP:NOTCATALOG). Also I agree with LargelyRecyclable - this could just be a list pulled from the product website. The difference with List of Magic: The Gathering sets is that it tells much more of a story, and why sets themselves are notable, instead of just a list of products. I'm a big fan of board/card games (not Yu-Gi-Oh! specifically), but don't think we need this page to give a good encyclopedic representation of this particular game. = paul2520 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of satisfying any of the notability guidelines, and plenty of evidence of satisfying WP:What Wikipedia is not. This kind of thing is suitable for a wiki for game fans and the like, but not for a general encyclopaedia.Breaking sticks (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG; an indiscriminate collection of information and does not meet WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 3 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 two "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing of the article. Sandstein 17:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlexCab

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

Fails WP:GNG seems not to have been played anywhere else than in a night club in 1975. Possibly redirect to Alexandra Charles. Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Göteborgs-Tidningen does not review Stockholm shows. This show was played mainly at the nightclub of Alexandra Charles, which was not in Gothenburg. In Sweden, I think the corresponding article was kept becuase of the stage debuts and the participation at her place of those young beginners, plus the Tainton choreography. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what, SergeWoodzing? Who mentioned Göteborgstidningen? Please clarify. Bishonen | talk 07:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, I wrote a question on the Talk page for this article on svwp if they Think this is a valid article or self promo. It is Old and the creator is a blocked user. Adville (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little confusing, Adville. But I know you meant the creator is blocked on Swedish wikipedia, not here. (I admit I question the relevance of mentioning it here. Please avoid poisoning the well.) Bishonen | talk 07:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Poisoning? Sorry för being to short. The creator of the Swedish article is blocked on svwp because of COI and pov pushing before I starter to edit at all. (But he is not blocked. He quit by him self) It was not SW I ment. The user EmulEikS is however mentioned on the COI discussion about SW. Please Think Good faith in what I do here. I am not the disruptive user who are investigated and proven to have COI. (If you Think I am Only haunting SW please look at my edits yesterday and his "likes". Adville (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the creator of the Swedish article is blocked on Swedish wiki (except actually he quit). I see. No, I absolutely don't think you edit in bad faith, Adville. You were a little short, and I misunderstood. Actually, I will remove my misunderstanding of who you were talking about from my own comment, otherwise I'll be the one poisoning the well with unnecessary outside stuff. Sorry. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note Sorry Bishonen, but you are wrong. He did not quit Swedish Wikipedia, and if that is what you have been told you should look it up, because at the moment it seems you have been misinformed. He did not leave SvWP. He was banned. The fact of the matter is that he fought hard for not being blocked so that he could continue his work around Lars Jacob, the photos and the royals. Dnm (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dnm: This is getting more and more surrealist. Adville just said "But he is not blocked. He quit by him self", with a note showing he was talking about the creator of the Swedish article, EmilEikS. And showing that he quit. That's why I said 'Oh, I see, the creator of the Swedish article quit'. Can we be done now please? Or, if people must reply further, will they kindly read the whole conversation first? And please nobody say "he" again, but specify who they're talking about. And nobody try to get in any potshots about unrelated matters again. Please. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think the confusion comes from the fact that there are a certain number of editors with similar names here and on Swedish WP who have identical editing patterns and are or were editing identical articles here and there. The user we have all been involved with here who has admitted a COI appeared a few months after some quit either here or there. So I believe that there is a general assumption amongst some editors that we are dealing with either 1 editor who has left and recreated new user profiles or a group of editors that have a common goal to promote 1 person and his interests. The editors were at one time SPA users and this is born out by their identical user pages that promote the southerly club and their very similar names. So I think that when "he" is used it refers to this group of accounts. I believe this maybe why SW has claimed he "quit" svwp whereas he was blocked. He may have been referring to another account. Exactly the same thing happened here. One of the Emil accounts asked to be blocked here on EnWP and a short time after SW's account was created and he started editing the same articles. All of that is actually totally incidental to the notability of this article. I nominated because there are not enough sources to prove notability it is a show that was played in a club belonging to Alexandra Charles and is not independently notable hence my suggestion for a redirect. Domdeparis (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you indented as you did, Domdeparis — weren't you responding to me? Anyway, I'll reply. I suppose I thank you for clearing that up, but for god's sake, everybody from now on stop talking about users here. It's supposed to be a discussion about an article. I should have said that right away, rather than merely 'don't say 'he' but specify who you're talking about'. Don't name anybody and don't hint at anybody. No more pokes or grudges or anything about anybody that anybody would like to get off their chest. This is so completely the wrong place for it. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry I'm on my phone and not easy to indent correctly sometimes. I've corrected that. I totally agree with you, I nominated the article and not the users. It was created and edited by COI users, that was the reason I looked at it in the first place but not the reason I nominated it. I do not believe it meets GNG and that is all there is to it. It is not promotional as it was a show that was played over 40 years ago and unlikely to be played again. There is no coverage that proves notability and that is the bottom line. Domdeparis (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dysklyver 23:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please confine comments to the subject at hand. Cite policy or guidelines wherever possible. And be brief. Above all, be brief.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Sourced. Cabaret was legit. The cabaret was successful and part of Seedish theater world history. BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, there's no evidence of it currently cited in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources cited here are 3 contemporary reviews/mentions in Swedish newspapers, and it's unclear to me if those are reviews or simply performance listings. Regardless, there is nothing to indicate lasting notability here. The claim that it gave a few notable individuals their "stage debuts" is unsourced, and in fact contradicted by RS in at least one case (Anders Eljas, whose own bio says he got his debut as a keyboardist for ABBA). Lots of wikilinked (and often unsourced) name-dropping here but the actual sources do not show notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer I got on svwp (even if that is not valid here) was "insert this in the article about the club", but then there is an own article about the club. (Maybe that could be a solution for some of these deletions. An article about that club and there are sources) Adville (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Fyddlestix, with the addition that there are only 2 mentions. The third only references the location of the venue and does not mention the show at all. /Elzo 90 (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - taking into account some questionable recent input on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.1.37 (talk • contribs) — 85.194.1.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Minimal coverage even if the sources are accepted without dispute. Whether the club is notable is a separate question. --RL0919 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Fyddlestix and RL0919. Dnm (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Although not enough reliable references to establish true notability, i believe it isnt a bad article.–Celestina007 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, Celestina007. But that is not what we are looking at here. I can write a nonsens article and make it sound good without RS showing notability, and I would be horrified if it was kept on the bases of the article sounding or looking good. I think that if you can't verify notability you should question the article. You say that the notes does not show true notability, still you are taking neutral stand. I would like to know the reasons (not as a control -- I really want to know because if it is some that can change my mind it would be sad not knowing the arguments). Dnm (talk) 07:49, 1 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 List of polygons. Redirected by (temporarily) blocked article creator, and general consensus here, so no need for further discussion. ansh 666 19:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heptacontadigon

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

Not every form of polygon has an article within Wikipedia and rightfully so given not every polygon is notable. As this article fails to explain what is particularly notable with a 72 sided polygon I can't see why it should have it's own article. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to be notable. The title could possibly be redirected to List of polygons.- Mr X 23:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -Agree With MrX -Rpyle731^talk 00:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of polygons. This user has enthusiastically created a number of similar articles, all of which have been redirected to the same target destination. We really don't need an article on every fancy polygonal shape that is mathematically feasible. Where would it stop? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Not independently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per above. -- Begoon 11:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of polygons. There just doesn't appear to be much said about 72-gons by themselves. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Ameer

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

Promotional article about a Northern Nigerian musician that fails WP:MUSICBIO. Phrases like "... one of the most decorated and successful young hip hop artists in Nigeria..." are not only unsourced but factually incorrect. Darreg (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage and fails to meet WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually only his death is merely reported in some press, nothing more about him is written. Flatly fails WP:MUSICBIO. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of article albeit posseses WP:SIGCOV as pertains his death but doesnt qualify for a stand-alone article on the encylopedia as he fails to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007(talk) 18:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject himself fails to meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. His death has received some coverage, however WP:BLP1E applies. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: even WP:BLP1E cannot be applied here per WP:BLP1E's point number 2 and moreover WP:NOTOBITUARY –Ammarpad (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reforged - Riding on Fire

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

Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO. The album has not been released yet, and there is a lack of significant independent coverage regarding the product and pre-release phase of the album. Comatmebro (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)|pg=Reforged - Riding on Fire}}[reply]

Keep or redirect - If this article cannot be kept, it should be retained as a likely search term redirecting to Iron Savior. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article doesn't seem to fail on WP:PROMO and is to be released soon, clearly notable. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinion must be discounted because it provides no reference to the supposedly found article. Sandstein 10:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarius Entertainment

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

Fails GNG. Defunct film company; press is limited to routine coverage in the trades. JSFarman (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:16, 22 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) 20:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though Clarius Entertainment was defunct, I found an article yesterday about if Clarius Entertainment released the film My All American. Evil Idiot 10:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although you haven't provided a link, articles I've found are company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. Please provide a link for the reference. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 2 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 Vista Outdoor. Sandstein 10:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Chef

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. XFhumu^Talk 18:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but Redirect name to Vista Outdoor where it is listed as a brand. Nominator is correct about failing WP:CORPDEPTH. It is mentioned in quite a few articles and books, but nothing in-depth about the brand itself.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:34, 20 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) 20:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and Redirect name only to Vista Outdoor. A plausible search term, but a stand-alone article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M. Ilyas Kamboh

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

Not much coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Greenbörg (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 13 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) 20:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:00, 27 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) 20:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin A. Kraus

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

Unreferenced possible autobiography. It was originally created in the user space of and editor with a suspiciously-similar name User:Bk012003/Benjamin A. Kraus and moved to mainspace by a near-SPA. Possible socking by other SPA's to improve appearance of notability. The only RS cited doesn't actually mention this person but there are no independent sources and searches only return mirrors or false positives. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a clear fail of WP:GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin. This article is full of self-promotional buzz words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the two references is routine mention of his internship at McKinsey as a second year college student. The second reference is a cheesecake photography website that does not mention Kraus. There is nothing better. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion, not notable. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:42, 1 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 Bengaluru FC. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Bengaluru FC

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

The main bulk of the content and citations are directly copied from main article about the club. A separate article is not needed for such a young club. I recommend deletion and merge the little content back to Bengaluru FC. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - History page is a more detailed summary of the club history compared to main page. Inception and the first season are important for both pages, that's the reason it has a lot of similarity. The later seasons contain only major points in the main page. Coderzombie (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply History club articles are meant to be an expansion of the main club history when the original article gets to large or too vast to navigate. (WP:BRANCH). Barnet F.C. is an 129 year old English club which doesn't have a separate article for it's history or it's fans. The only reason why you have a separate article for your fans is because a number of editors even admins have failed to understand simple guidelines of WP:BRANCH and WP:COMMONSENSE. Your football club expanse is only four years old. It may pass WP:GNG on it's own, but when it's counts to the subject as a whole and you already have the main body of the article in the original club article you created then COMMONSENSE applies. For what you have created at the moment is simply copying the majority what you have written on the main article. The article is still a young tree my friend. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find it very hard to believe we need a pov-fork article on history for anything under 10 years old. Even that seems very low, but 4 years for a "history" article is just crazy low.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, could you try harder to voice AFD opinions that have a connection to wikipedia policy? I am sure, with some effort, all kinds of instances where an article on something recent merited a valid policy compliant fork could be offered to counter the opinion you offered here. But why go to that effort, when you haven't made the effort to offer any connection to the policies and guidelines that opinions here are supposed to be based on? Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, I just refreshed my memory on what WP:POVFORK addresses -- forks that seem triggered by someone's desire to push their (biased) point of view. Isn't it potentially an insult to characterize someone's efforts as a POV fork, when the content they added is not biased? Has anyone got a serious reason to accuse any of the contributors to this article of showing bias?
  And, as I noted below, the article creator did not actually cut and paste any material from the article on the club. Rather they created 14k of valid, coherent, properly referenced brand new material. Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - does not merit a separate article, should be merged back with parent. Giant Snowman 07:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anything worthwhile back to the club article. The history of a club 4-years old is too shot to merit a history article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above two !votes. Four years as a club does not warrant a separate article. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three contributors above call for a merge "back" into the main article. Hmmm. Was this article forked from the article on the club?
Nope. The record shows Coderzombie wrote the first draft, of about 14K, on 2016-05-31. If this were an actual fork, we would see something like 10-14K trimmed from the main article. The record shows Coderzombie did edit the article about the club, on that date, but their edits [1], [2], were merely relatively minor mundane copy-editing.
So, this part of the merge suggestions is based on a misconception. Coderzombie's creation of this article followed seven routine copy editing changes to the article about the club. They cut nothing from the main article to create this article. It seems to me that the creation of 14k of coherent and properly documented content is something we should applaud.
A general theme of those calling for delete or merge seems to be that the topic of the history of this sports club just doesn't seem significant enough to merit a standalone wikipedia article. But wait a second, we are supposed to rely on GNG and other notability guidelines, when determining notability. Sufficient references that cover a topic in detail is the gold standard there. I don't remember any deletion or notability policy or guideline that says we should rely a feeling that a topic just doesn't seem significant enough to merit an article to determine notability.
Sorry, no offense, but basing an AFD opinion on whether a topic SEEMS significant is an instance of a lapse from the good advice at WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
The main article is already pretty long. As are 2013–14 Bengaluru FC season, 2014–15 Bengaluru FC season, 2015–16 Bengaluru FC season, 2016–17 Bengaluru FC season, and they seem coherent and well referenced, as well. Forking off subtopics, when a main topic is already long is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Merge proponents routinely overlook the serious disadvantages of unnessary merges.

If we merged this article, and the other articles, into the article on the club, its length could cause an uncomfortable delay, on rendering.
It is easier for readers to go to some other information by clicking on a link, than searching for it with a browser's search function, or visually scanning for that info, while scrolling. Clicking on a link has the further advantage that the reader can return back to where they started by clicking on the back button. If they went to the related information through scrolling, or the browser's search function, returning to where one was, before looking for that additional information requires MORE searching.
unnecessary merges erode the value of the "what links here" button, and of our watchlists. Only articles, full articles, can go on a watchlist. We can't have a watchlist for a mere section of an article. When the wikipedia consists of smaller, more focused articles, then our watchlists can be more nuanced, more useful. Similarly, when every article is focussed on a single topic, a reader can trust more fully that anything that links to the article they are currently reading is actually related to the topic they want to know about. Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: I've never seen you contribute to WP:Football project, yet you seem to think Bengaluru FC is a big article. Trust me, it's small compared to most football clubs. Also we use a set Manual of Style and what has happened here in my view is that the History article has been created way to early. You're looking way to deep into this. Govvy (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big? The article is long, many bytes. As to how important those who work on the Football project consider it, compared with other football clubs? I neither know nor care. Are you really arguing that the article is too long, because there are articles on football clubs that you consider to be more important, for some reason, that are shorter this this article?

Wow. That is a new one on me.

With regard to this manual of style, are you saying the Football project has its own manual of style, and this article, somehow violates that manual of style? If so, I have two questions for you. First, please point to the manual, and show us exactly how this article is violating it. Second, I have never heard of deleting an article merely because the current state didn't conform to a manual of style. The usual response to an article with stylistic problems is to try and fix them, call for fixing them on the article's talk page, or selectively add appropriate tags. If you are recommending deletion over an issue of style, please understand that is highly unusual. Please explain which exceptional stylistic problem can't be resolved through simple editing, so it requires deletion.

You say I am "looking way to {sic} deep into this". Nominator Govvy, the first line of your nomination: "The main bulk of the content and citations are directly copied from main article about the club." is, to be charitable, wildly incorrect. If you find having that drawn to other readers' attention embarrassing, I am afraid I don't think I have anything to apologize for. I don't go out of my way to embarrass other contributors, when I think they lapse from policy, as we are all fallible. But, really, isn't a better response to finding one's self embarrassed to resolve to be more careful, in future? Geo Swan (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan:, I really have no idea what you're on about. Our project MoS is here. The history for a football club should only be expanded to another article when it gets too big due to previous consensus, but you don't know that because you don't take part in the project. Govvy (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you got the right page? You sent me to what looks like a draft. It looks incomplete, and prior to any agreement. And, even if were agreed upon, I don't see where it says anything barring the creation of articles like this. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - no need for this fork at this stage in the club's history. Insufficient encyclopedic content for a standalone article, current length is fine for main club article. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or just delete, as the history at Bengaluru FC and the individual season pages already cover all of this material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - no apparent reason for this fork, since the club is so young. There's not much different info here than in the main article. WP:TOOSOON applies. If the club's history was much longer, we'd cut back the history section in the main article correspondingly, to make the content easier to maintain. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 3 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 09:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trukkin

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". No WP:ORGIND sources and clear WP:SPIP. Company hasn't received enough coverage to be considered notable. Nihlus 19:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provided sources are nothing better than regurgitated press releases and run of the mill coverage; additionally there appears to be some COI on the part of the creator. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; 100% promo in content and execution. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A user has removed what they considered to be promotional content from the article. See diff. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the content of the article now, I still consider the subject to be fundamentally lacking in notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Four Nations Championship

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL - it's only a wish on the part of the Spanish federation at this stage. The source is very tentative and conditional, couched in terms of "countries like...", and carries the caveat "Who these Four Nations teams would be is not confirmed". Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC) rem:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 26 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) 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much like the user before me, their is just a lack of coverage. Also put this page up as well for deletion

2018 Women's Four Nations Championship Matt294069 is coming 02:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Fernandez

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

Promotional stuff affiliated with ET. No other coverage found. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a good catch. clearly promotional stuff. not a notable career. only namecheck in the News. I dont consider The Express Tribune because it is affiliated with the subject. --Saqib (talk) 16:14, 21 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) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional tone. Not convinced that his career is notable enough. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to sustain notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG nor WP:JOURNALIST. I was curious about the "Barrett Award" award he received, having never heard of it. I thought maybe it was a significant award in South Asia. On digging, I found little about this award outside of the reference noted in the article. The reference notes the award has a cash prize of 10,000 INR, which is roughly US$150. This is a minor award at best. Nothing else to remotely support notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome D'Silva

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 23 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) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance, and no SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Just a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that there is a tyincbeaniebabies.wikia.com , which would probably be where this content would be suitable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beanie Babies

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

Per WP:NOT. This page has excessive amounts of details about Beanie Babies.

Almost all of the entries are (and should remain) red-links or are redirects to this page, so it doesn't meet WP:SAL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. A majority of the blue links are redirects to other articles. Ajf773 (talk) 05:30, 26 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) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An impressive piece of work, in its own way, but not an encyclopedic treatment of an encyclopedic topic; which is to say, this is ultimately fancruft. Not appropriate content for WP, which is not a catalog or an indiscriminate compilation of information. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 1 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 "keep" opinions don't really address the sourcing problems. Sandstein 09:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Panto Jr.

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

Fails WP:NPOL. All coverage relates to his political career, which consists solely of two separate stints as mayor of a smallish Pennsylvania city. Fails NPOL as all coverage relates to his political career, which reaches its pinnicle well below the threshold required. Note that as NPOL supercedes WP:GNG, it isn't applicable. John from Idegon (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently, there are three articles in Category:Mayors of Easton, Pennsylvania, so if being mayor of Easton is insufficient to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, maybe those articles could be examined for notability as well. Also, I'd like to point out that this article has been the subject of promotional editing by at least three single-purpose accounts including one whose username matches the subject, so there is a likely COI issue here as well. TimBuck2 (talk) 20:28, 20 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) 17:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSir Joseph ^(talk) 19:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a city of 26,800 is too small to presume notability for its mayor under WP:NPOL. The article is promotional in tone, while the coverage is routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The City of Easton is important as the county seat of Northampton County, Pennsylvania (population 297,735), and for Lafayette College. The mayor works closely with the college on civic matters, and hence the Honorary Doctorate in 2011.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the seat of its own county is not enough to render a small city able to hand its mayors a free notability boost over other mayors of similarly sized places — that is not what POLOUTCOMES means by "cities of regional prominence". If all you had to do to make a city "regionally prominent" was to keep reducing the size of the "region" until you had created one small enough to make a "the city is prominent within this set of boundaries" claim, then we'd have to keep an article about everybody who was ever mayor of a village of two — because you could always just keep shrinking the box more and more. In a city this size, the make or break condition is "who have received significant press coverage", not "is the seat of its county" — but the depth and breadth of press coverage here is not adequate to pass that test, because any mayor of anywhere could always show this much purely local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mayors of Easton have have traditionally held an out-sized, influential role in Pennsylvania and Lehigh Valley politics and business, despite the small population on paper. Panto is no exception and Easton is no "village". Disagree on the depth and breadth, the coverage is absolutely there. Agree with the points made by Dthomsen8. Scanlan (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the "there" that enough coverage to get him past GNG "is", exactly? It's not enough to just say that enough coverage to pass GNG exists, because anybody could simply say that about any article topic; you have to actually show the evidence that enough coverage to pass GNG exists. Bearcat (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Exactly. Where are these sources? Are there sources that show widespread detailed coverage of his political career? Certainly if this burg is so politically important, the man would be covered in the New York Times, which is after all, located less than 100 miles away, or in the Philadelphia Enquirer, which is less than 50 miles away. Or perhaps you are referring to extensive coverage of his life beyond politics? Please, do share these enlightening sources. John from Idegon (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. I ran a good faith news archive search on "Sal Panto" , hundreds of hits, bu teverything in the first several pages was local and routine. Fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 2 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} 23:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MyDefrag

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

Not notable and fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 20 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) 17:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is getting embarrassing. A short time at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software and this one too?? A DeFrag program, described in the second sentence as "inclusion of a scripting language" is not notable??? You can google about that fact that the word is spelled with 2 R's - EmbaRRass, NOT embarass. Aside from my self-interest in seeing that the work I put into PerfectDisk and Raxco not be deleted, the efforts by others to start DiskTuna/DiskTune, MyDefrag, TouchMail, GyazMail, et al - shows that there's something "wrong with the system." As for the "sock puppet" problem (TouchMail @ 00:51, 26 October 2017), perhaps I can risk saying that there are holes in the shoes.
Even defining a scripting language takes some effort. Implementing one takes even more. Someone needs to think about the Cat-for-sale that plays the violin (story) - the potential buyer then says "but not as good as Jascha Heifetz."
More time is needed on editing and less time on nominating for deletion etc. etc.
The sock puppets and paid editors (yes, I was unaware of this problem until not long ago) will not go away any more than the people who (name whatever is your pet problem). Pi314m (talk) 10:44, 26 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) 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No obvious notability. The argument above seems to suggest that since it has a scripting language it should be notable, but that's not what notable means. I understand the frustration of seeing hard work go unappreciated, but that happens some times. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CARTES (Exhibition & Conference)

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

Little coverage in RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, and maybe not much, I see that organizer Comexposium was speedily deleted as spam back in 2012. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 13 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) 17:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 26 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) 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FinCon

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

No coverage in RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. FinCon is the biggest conference of its size and generates noteworthy attention from the media and business communities. According to a Google News search, the conference has over 1,600 recent relevant mentions. Here are recent mentions in Forbes, Huffington Post, CNBC, and a couple of mentions at Time Money. --Eric (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes and HuffPost are blogs, and the CNBC is 3 words in a caption. When I look at it, the time.com webpage is almost blank, and neither Bing nor Google have a cache. I was able to see the time.com page at web.archive.org, but there was nothing about FinCon, just some links to about half a dozen articles. As for the Google News, the number I got was 241 Ghits...you have to force Google to display the last page before you will get a good number. And they weren't all "relevant" mentions, as there were many irrelevant hits such as FinconAfrica, a mobile games app startup, pages in Chinese, 18th annual insurance conference, and press releases. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V#Notability (WP:DEL7 IAR). It is hard to find WP:GNG sources, in part because it is a conference training people to write "financial blogs", so many related articles are blogs. There are many name conflicts such as a wellness conference in Idaho, and the annual insurance conference now in its 18th year. I only saw one hit in Google books, and it attracts remarkably little local press as the conference moves from city to city. It is hard to tell at this point if notability is increasing. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 15 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) 17:21, 20 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) 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Shelby

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

Prolific but non-notable author who fails WP:AUTHOR. Nothing written by the article subject has fulfilled the previously stated policy's requirements to fulfill notability guidelines. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are a collection of user-generated sites, his websites, and comercial sites that seek to sell his books. Nothing to pass either GNG or the write notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 21 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) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Vigil

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

FAILS WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER article created and edited by user with declared COI Lars Jacob mentioned multiple time in the article Domdeparis (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 16 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) 17:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS supporting the main claim to notability that his short career influenced those of many later individuals. Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 25 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) 17:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Agricola44. Not enough evidence of notability that his short career influenced many later individuals. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

La Yein Fonda

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

Try Google for a short time. I can not find the source. If no one has ever added the source I suggested deleting. O1lI0 (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 13 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) 17:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 26 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) 17:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one "keep" is clearly unpersuasive. Sandstein 09:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aviron Pictures

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

Fails GNG. The company was established in 2016, and thus far the coverage is limited to routine press in film trades. JSFarman (talk) 01:52, 13 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) 16:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 22 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) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles about Avirion Pictures are found on PR Newswire page. They can help because they are reliable sources. Evil Idiot (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except articles on "PR Newswire" are ... PR, articles authored and released by the company, and therefore those articles fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:ORGIND. No arguments were made about "reliable sources". A reliable source could print a company announcement or press release verbatim and it would fail as a PRIMARY source and fails WP:ORGIND since the resulting "article" would not be intellectually independent, even though it was published in a reliable source. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 2 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} 23:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Camp (Cleveland, GA)

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

Non-notable religious summer camp page, among other issues - the only reference is to the website itself and the article is written like an advertisement.

WP:NOTABILITY Skynorth ^talk2me! 16:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't call it an "advertisement" because it is not written well enough. It is promotional, yes, but I doubt that the camp itself is involved in creating this article, and I bet they would prefer for the article to be deleted, as it is not professional. Seems more like what a well-meaning person who attended a conference there would compose in a short amount of time, without sources. I browsed Google search results on "Woodlands Camp Georgia" and the like, and I find directory listings and announcements from various organizations of their conferences at the place, but i found no substantial coverage. --do ncr am 00:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably a good faith contribution by a participant rather than an attempt at commercial promotion. Regardless, this is utterly unsourced and fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:06, 1 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 09:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Parfett

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

Classic one event, though not a BLP. The one supporting article was written by his great-nephew. DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls under WP:BIO1E. agtx 17:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (if it was properly sourced, it might be worth a mention in some article about the Titanic).E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SOLDIER (and NEWSPAPERBOY). 1E (photograph of him).Icewhiz (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- completely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the authors of Famous: 1914-1918 devoted a whole chapter, 14 pages, to Parfett. OTROS ASPECTOS TÉCNICOS Y HUMANOS DEL RMS “TITANIC” has multiple references to him. Google translate tells me this article is about a modern artist who works with iconic old photos, and adapts them for ironic political commentary. The article particularly addresses the artist's use of the famous Ned Parfett image.

" Moreover, the historical photographs used by Shaun Tan are also decontextualized from their historicity regime even if they do not nonetheless constitute a strong point of anchorage on the scale of the iconographic narrative. The famous example of Ned Parfett, a boy who sells newspapers announcing the sinking of the Titanic is significant here. Shaun Tan is inspired by this image but the cropping and erasing of the original photograph all the historical clues (ie the announcement on the front page of the titanic maritime disaster journal) replacing the typography of the newspaper by an original graphic translation of a fictional language atemporelle and voluntarily incomprehensible.Parmore, for the Australian cartoonist maintain the family bond is a guarantee of survival."

Smarty-pants scholars assume other smarty-pants scholars will know who Ned Parfett is. Those of us who aren't smarty-pants scholars need a wikipedia article that explains who he is. Geo Swan (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is enough. At the end of the day, what's notable is the event (sinking of the Titanic) and not the newspaper boy who happened to be photographed. The chapter on Parfett in the Van Emden begins "His name remains virtually unknown but his face is famous around the world." It then explains that "for many years" his identity "remained unknown and unheralded, except by his close-knit south London family" and that the story was told with his family's assistance. In other words, he's a curiosity for his appearance in the photograph, but that's it. agtx 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I think you have that backwards. The image hasbeen included in multiple high profile collections of the most iconic images of the 20th Century. The identity of the newsboy in this very widely distributed was not recorded, at the time. Editors who published the photo described his identity as a mystery. After a long time his identity became known. Now he is celebrated, both for his appearance in one of the most widely reproduced images of the 20th Century, but also for being a war hero, who was killed at the train depot, when he was being sent home, shortly before the armistice.
  The image is old enough to be in the public domain, and the article should contain it.
  Some might argue the article should be renamed Titanic newspaperboy, or something like that.
  We've decided to have stand alone article before, for individuals mainly known for their appearance in widely republished photos, like Marcy Borders, the "dust lady". Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Marcy Borders who SURVIVED the collapse of the twin towers. She isn't notable for being the dust lady, this adds to her notability. Rather, she is notable for being a survivor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.93.58 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GeoSwan, We have an entire Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph. It's all about the sourcing. I can't find enough. If you can. ping me and I'll be glad to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is WP:BIO1E. While all deaths are tragic, not all are notable; his service and death in WW1 were entirely WP:MILL, and the book chapter relies extremely heavily on "would have"s based on the records of his division as a whole. Ignoring that, he simply appeared in a famous picture. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 3 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} 23:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mauriece Jacks, Jr.

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

Unable to find any sources to satisfy GNG, has worked on many notable films but I do not believe his technical role confers any notability. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Video assist operator" is as non-notable as it gets. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence found to show that the subject meets WP:GNG. gongshow talk 15:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that subjects meets WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Wrong place on the Internet for Movie Data Base filler material like this. (Now what was the name of that other site, I forget...) Carrite (talk) 14:08, 1 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 Next Japanese general election. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next Japanese general election

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

I genuinely don't know what the point of this page is. We don't really need opinion polls for an election that has already taken place, and the next Japanese general election isn't for another four years (making "opinions" rather useless). The only links on the page are dead, to boot. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know the WP-FANCYNAME, but WP is not a repository for random collections of information, true or not. This really is not a "Topic" as such. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Many elections, for example, the Next United Kingdom general election, separate the election page and the opinion poll page, see the Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. This is mainly due to people want to only see opinion polls and seeming the election has just happened opinion polls will soon come in but users will have to wait until that time. JDuggan101 (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's a bit premature to create this article before any post-election opinion polls have been conducted? Mélencron (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is slightly premature but it better to be prepared for when, inevitably, opinion polls come in. JDuggan101 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason why a separate article has to exist now before opinion polls have been released, or for that matter, before even a substantial amount been published – why not simply include them in the existing article (Next Japanese general election) until there are enough to warrant a size split after a few months? It shouldn't take long to set up the tables again when needed. Mélencron (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your statement and have moved the opinion polling to the main article JDuggan101 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would that mean that we have agreement this page can be redirected to the main article, for now? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. JDuggan101 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Pinging Imaginatorium as the lone delete holdout. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just commented that this does not seem a useful "article"; redirects are cheap. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. yes, I assumed Imaginatorium would have no objection to a redirect. I'll do so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Greatest (1977 film)#Soundtrack. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali's Theme

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

As a standalone article, the single fails WP:NMUS as it hasn't received independent, reliable coverage. DrStrauss talk 11:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has few citations and the song itself isn't very prominent. --Sau226 (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Greatest (1977 film)#Soundtrack. Nothing found to suggest standalone notability for this subject, and merely being the B-side of a top 40 hit does not meet WP:NSONG. gongshow talk 15:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tsalta Baptiste

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

How can someone become notable for a single short trailer on Youtube? DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is the coverage on 5 continents which swung the AFC, and possibly a pass on GNG. As regards raw experience, or even talent as a producer, writer, director, there is certainly not enough for general notablity, per WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 12:31, 21 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) 11:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTINHERITED. The trailer has something of a flash-in-the-pan notoriety; about all of substance that can be said for this guy is that he was in it. Maybe when he's done something else... Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article does not fit the notability of an WP:ENTERTAINER. --Caorongjin (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherited notability from yet-to-be released non notable film. Fails 3 points of WP:ENT completely. May be notable in the future, but not now WP:TOOSOON –Ammarpad (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cage

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

Not a notable wrestler, also a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (see page history). A search for sources brings back little but minor database entries. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources so WP:BASIC is not passed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong Echezolachukwu Inya Oko-Flex

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

Subject is non-notable Clicriffhard (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Clicriffhard (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hardly think a 15 year old would pass WP:NFOOTY or GNG yet. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, GNG, WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFOOTY. If the community adjudges that this article should be kept, any remaining content should be reviewed relative to the guidelines on articles in which the main subject is a child. Guliolopez (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article concerns a 15-year-old schoolboy who's a promising footballer. He obviously fails WP:NFOOTY, because he hasn't played in a fully pro league or at senior international level. I can't find any evidence that he's received enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to pass WP:BIO. There's some, but rather less than one might expect for the latest "wonderkid" coming through at a big club. He gets a couple of sentences in a mainstream piece about "new Irish" making their mark in sport, but little more than namechecks elsewhere. Only this, which is cited in the article, has any depth at all. Coverage would have to be exceptional for a schoolboy footballer to pass GNG, and it's not. It's TOOSOON: re-create if and hopefully when he does something noteworthy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way, way, wayyyy WP:TOOSOON. Article can always be recreated if and when subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about this individual is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Struway2 et al.: Fails to meet the criteria of WP:NFOOTY, insufficient sources available to meet WP:BIO, and does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. TOOSOON. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 2 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} 23:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solodev

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

I'm not G4-ing because one CSD has already been declined, and this seems to be a good-faith creation by a new editor, but nothing has changed since the last AfD ten months ago. The company does not meet WP:CORP. The small amount of coverage that exists is either trivial mentions or puff pieces in local business columns. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, no improvement since the last AfD; this company still does not meet our inclusion requirements. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rj Shahaan Shaukat

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

no reference. created by subject himself. doesn't pass GNG Saqib (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to have been a userpage, with all the absence of sourcing which one would expect of such a page, but which was recently moved into mainspace by another user, Robbiedfrazier. It isn't clear why that was done? AllyD (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence provided or found to indicate that the subject is notable, whether as Singer-songwriter, Radio Presenter, Web Programmer or freelancer. I am seeing only the usual social media and other user-created content pages. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. (An alternative to deletion is to restore this to its previous position as User:Shahaan Shaukat, though with the sales site links removed.) AllyD (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Okoro

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per wikipedia notability guidelines, the subject is notable to some extent, and should be given more time for improvements. -- Is Nutin 05:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete I looked online and did not find anything suitable for estalishing notability. The references included in the article are certainly not able to do it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete saw this line For more info visit ONYC Hair's website here. on the HuffPost source and I'm not convinced she meets WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete subject of the article fails to meetup with primary notability requirements such as WP:GNG Celestina007 »» (talk to me) 23:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails basic guideline WP:GNG Ammarpad (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, this article just states that she exists, but doesn't offer any specific reason why her existence would be noteworthy for the purposes of an encyclopedia — and the references aren't cutting it under WP:GNG either, as two of them are purely promotional bloggery, one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself rather than being independently discussed by third parties, and the fourth is a piece in which she's the bylined author and not the subject. This is not how you source a person as notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two interviews (Huffington Post and Tribune Online) lack non-primary source coverage, and of the other two sources one is by the subject of the article - not independent - and the other looks promotional in a way that makes me think it's based on a press release (as does other news coverage I could find online). Peter James (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Stejskal

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. Kablammo (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Jhunjhunwala

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

Sole notability claim seems to be a assistant-professor at Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.Fails WP:NPROF.Articles by him are abundant, about him are scarce.Won a non-notable award.Also see WP:FTN#Bharat Jhunjhunwala Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. --Muhandes (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability requirements for academics. However as a 67-year-old I doubt "too soon" applies to him. I could be wrong, but few people get propelled to notability after age 67. There are exceptions, but not many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Slim Burna

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

Given that Slim Burna has been deleted as a result of my closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slim Burna (2nd nomination), I think it's fair to suggest that we should also delete his discography. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Before the sockpuppets arrive, preferably. Ifnord (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The general consensus is that these song lists are only appropriate when there's a significant number of songs that have their own article. Not a single one of these songs have an article. It seems not even the artist does. There's no way a song list is warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no basis for maintaining this list since deletion of the recording artist's article. Ideally such dependent sublists should be bundled in the same AFD as the parent article. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were four other AfDs bundles with that one; the article's creator (per their own admission) is bent on creating as many articles as they can to promote this artist. Ifnord (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean to say that there have been four other AFDs involving Slim Burna content (the links in the box in the upper right in that prior AFD, which are just listing separate AFDs that match by name), those weren't "bundled". There was only one article nominated in that AFD. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: non-notable songs of a non-notable musician. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which WP:CSD criteria do you claim applies here? I don't see how this is speedy-eligible. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both largely depend on similar non reliable sources of blogs and fan sites. Also considering the related AfD where one user pledged to create more articles related to the deleted article of the artist. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously as parent was deleted for being non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sujit Nair

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

Fails WP:GNG.Purely promotional spam. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis that this is clearly WP:POV and promotional. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Septien

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

WP:NOTINHERITED; known mainly because of her clients (Demi Lovato, et al.). Covered mostly on niche music sites, while notable sources such as the Dallas Morning News and LA Times mention her in passing. Article itself is a copypaste from another site and has read like an advertisement with no attempt at neutrality since its creation in 2009. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted this article to the version before an IP dumped a load of copyvio and peacockery, though it still has other issues tagged back in May 2011. PamD 09:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in available independent, third-party, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Notability is not inherited. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written by SPA whose 1st edit was creating this article. Likely vanity or fan page. Agricola44 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impact India

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. All coverage is WP:ROUTINE or from unreliable wrestling news sites. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 01:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, event not notable. At most a note on the main article that they taped in India. MPJ-DK 14:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:EVENT; mostly stats 'cruft. Coverage is routine lacking depth. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Andrew Davis

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

Searches turned up virtually zero to show the notability of this person. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't come close to passing WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. A directory of links masquerading as an article, and most of them are downloads, which is a no-no. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate a pass of WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kali Linux#Tools. Content may be merged selectively from history. Sandstein 09:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Global Exploiter

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

Fails WP:NSOFT due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 08:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a little bit of content online, but not enough to warrant its own article here. I suggest that it be deleted. Doctor^G (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 13 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) 17:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Kali_Linux#Tools. Using a simple WP:BEFORE style search, I was able to add 5 sources, 3 of them books, and rewrite a little. Hence there is verifiable information about the topic. There isn't quite enough depth in these sources to satisfy notability, but discussions in three books suggests that a brief entry in Kali_Linux#Tools would be of due weight and also preserve verifiable information per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. --Mark viking (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Chandler (writer)

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

Notability Buffalopundit (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has received coverage in multiple published secondary sources, but just barely. The newspapers that mention him don't go into significant depth. Still, this satisfies WP:BASIC. Going further, subject is notable because he has received at least two awards (albeit regional). He has won the New York Press Association award at least once that I can find and one of his books has received an award, thus satisfying WP:ANYBIO. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep has coverage in reliable sources, won significant award Atlantic306 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battelle National Biodefense Institute

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

Non-notable organization mentioned only in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay up for a while while editors including myself can improve it. It's the subject of a Bloomberg URL (company profiles) and is, yes mentioned in passing in other reliable sources. However, I think we can apply the "There are no rules" rule here and recognize the organization's importance in the national security apparatus. Scientists there do research on pathogens that don't yet have a treatment or vaccine, and it houses the Department of Homeland Security's premier research agency on bioterrorism pathogens. That's my two cents. --Harris195622 (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center with possibly a selective merge (though from my look - most of what's here is in NBACC). I was about to !vote keep as a major biowarfare unit in a significant country should have an entry (and BNBI has coverage) - however it seems that BNBI mostly runs NBACC and doesn't do much else, and that coverage of BNBI is mainly due to NBACC - which is a well developed article. Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, I just spent a few minutes trying to puzzle out why this new article was created, tracking down and adding the url to a source. And coming to the conclusion that should be redirected or merged. Unless page creator User:Harris195622 wants to explain why we need a separate article on this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Judging from a few press releases I could find (no independent WP:SIGCOV), this seems to be a subsidiary of Battelle Memorial Institute whose pretty much only job is running NBACC. The statements that the institute itself has activities unconnected to NBACC aren't backed by their refs. Daß Wölf 03:18, 1 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. Should really be WP:CSD#G3 but this will do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Magpie

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Tagged as such because it's nothing but nonsense. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fringe. unsourced. Not much in BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't found any sources yet, not even unreliable ones, much less reliable ones. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteZero evidence of any coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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