Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 September 19 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep but repurpose to include far more references to wrestling. Since the main thrust of the notability argument here is clearly that a wrestling rivalry exists. Perhaps also rename the article but I'll punt this to the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa-Penn State Rivalry[edit]

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

The two football teams have met on and off since the 1930s, more regularly of course since PSU joined the Big 10, but the game lacks any of the hallmarks of a "rivalry" - most particularly, 3d party reliable sourcing beyond the rare stray characterization of the series as such. JohnInDC (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting idea. I'd probably support that as well. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The schools appear to have an actual "rivalry" when it comes to wrestling, see http://www.ncaa.com/video/wrestling/2017-01-31/high-five-wrestling-rivalries-augsburg-wartburg-oklahoma-state-oklahoma , and it'd be fine to rename and recast the article as "Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry". But the notable competition in one sport doesn't bleed into the others. JohnInDC (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a recent creation (September 18), apparently as part of the buildup to this weekend's (September 23) football game between the two schools. The wrestling angle is a red herring. The main topic of the article (and infobox) was and remains a purported football rivalry, and wrestling was not even mentioned until after the AfD started. If someone were to create an article about the wrestling rivalry, its notability could and should be judged separately. However, the football series does not have the characteristics of a true rivalry or sufficiently notable series. Relevant criteria include: (1) geographic proximity - Iowa City and State College, PA, are roughly 800 miles apart, separated by three states, and lack the geographic proximity (typically intra-state or border-state series) that contribute to rivalry status; (ii) trophy - there is no trophy (e.g., Little Brown Jug) or official name for the series (e.g., Red River Showdown); (iii) frequency/longevity - the teams did meet in 1930 but did not meet again until 41 years later, are not in the same division of the Big Ten, and have met only 26 times in total; and (iv) classic matchups - there have been zero instances in which the teams played while both were ranked in the top 10 and only three instances in which both were ranked in the top 25: 1984 (#5 vs. #12), 1995 (#18 vs. #19) and 2010 (#22 vs. #18). All in all, I don't see enough here to convince me that this is a true rivalry or that it is a sufficiently notable non-rivalry series to warrant having its own stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NRIVALRY, sports rivalries aren't inherently notable and need to meet the GNG. That means not the routine sports coverage churned out on a daily basis by bored sportswriters on deadline puffing up the Saturday game as a Great And Enduring Rivalry. What the pluperfect hell, this "rivalry" is all of 26 games over the course of ninety freaking years? Nha Trang Allons! 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - A modern wrestling series with the sourcing I see in the article is notable, in my opinion. The word, "rivalry" here is a bit of a red herring, as it is often used as a synonym for series in the body and the headline of articles, and many series may feel like not much of a rivalry but still may get coverage in itself (rather than just a way to talk about an upcoming game in the context of a previous game between the teams). Smmurphy(Talk) 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept, it should be moved to "Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry". There is absolutely no showing that there is a rivalry or notable series in football (which remains the focus of the infobox and the majority of the article). Cbl62 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving seems like a fair idea to me; if the rivalry broadened to include football (or academic decathlon or whatever), then removing wrestling from the article title would be easy enough. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear out the football stuff and move to Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry. There is seriously no evidence from sources that this is an actual rivalry in football or really any other sport. ansh666 06:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need to clear out the football stuff. The names of the teams transfer across sports, so the football stuff can be kept as part of the overall article as long as it is verifiable, even if it mostly the wrestling stuff that demonstrates notability. I'd like to see some precedent that similar college sport team rivalry articles are divided by sport before I'd endorse throwing out this useful info. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 23:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While there is inconsistency, rivalries between the same schools in different sports are most effectively dealt with separately. See Michigan–Michigan State men's ice hockey rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State men's soccer rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry. See also Alabama–Auburn men's basketball rivalry, Alabama-Auburn football rivalry, Florida–Florida State football rivalry, Florida–Florida State men's basketball rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having nominated this for deletion, I think that renaming it as Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry is a good idea, better in fact than deletion. The schools' competition in wrestling (in contrast to football) seems to qualify as a notable rivalry, worthy of an article. The football stuff however would need to go. If it's not a "rivalry" in that sport too then it's just clutter, a recitation of a non-notable series of games between two teams that now find themselves in the same FBS conference. And if non-notable football is worthy of inclusion then why not also the non-notable tennis, or swimming, or basketball series between them? JohnInDC (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the wrestling rivalry is notable. The football and other sports can be ancillary inclusions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Paul McDonald, JohnInDC, and others. The wrestling rivalry should be the main focus of the article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: the renamed, essentially new, article shouldn’t include facts about non-rivalry sports. JohnInDC (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliable sources talk about this like it is a big thing: "Iowa-Penn State is the nation’s fiercest wrestling rivalry"[1], "The Iowa vs. Penn State rivalry in college football has ballooned in importance, especially in recent years"[2] Antrocent (♫♬) 23:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there are a couple of good sources for the football side too, I can't see removing the football material. If people object to the football stuff and the wrestling stuff being in the same article I think they should independently exist as separate articles. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 06:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree re the football side. It's thin, or stale, or bloggy. There's precious little on it. JohnInDC (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the recent changes? Two reliable sources is enough for GNG, we have that and more for both the football and wrestling sides of this. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 11:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I did look at them. For football I see a 2010 article from "Sportsthenandnow.com" describing a football "rivalry", which is the identical 2010 article cited at bleacherreport.com (so just one source, and seven years old to boot); a 2014 ESPN article about a weird 6-4 game that doesn't mention "rivalry", and 4 routine ESPN game summaries, none of which mention "rivalry". So I stand by my observation. (As I've said above, I don't dispute the wrestling rivalry.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i’m also not sure about “two source“ rule. I always thought the standard was “multiple“. JohnInDC (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two is 'multiple'. Also please note what someone else said above, the term 'rivalry' is a red herring. A rivalry means 'among the games that they have played against each other' not "rivalry" in the colloquial sense (any two teams playing against each other are 'rivals'). — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 11:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. If "two" were "multiple", or enough, then all the Wikipedia guidance would say "more than one reliable source", not "multiple" when describing what's sufficient. (Also "multiple" means "several", which 2 isn't.) Separately, what you're describing is not a "rivalry" but a "series". A "rivalry" in the sports / college sports / college football sports context has a more specific meaning, usually (as described above), a series that has been elevated in some fashion by, e.g., a name for the annual matchup ("Apple Cup"), a trophy ("Little Brown Jug") or at the very least multiple reliable 3d party sources that refer to it as a "rivalry". By your definition, literally any series of matches between any two competitors in a conference is a notable "rivalry" because the games are covered by major media. But that's the very kind of ROUTINE coverage that doesn't make the cut. As for wrestling - I'm sold here. But football? Nah. Someone seven years ago described it as a rivalry and few if any other sources picked up that characterization in the intervening years (when the teams were routinely playing). It's not a "rivalry". (I'll either find some links to the College Football project page, or find someone who can direct you to prior discussions on this point.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being a bit too rigid, but I'll set aside the 'rivalry' argument for others to make. Multiple is clearly "more than one" in my mind (and in the dictionary), but I don't think this is the place to quibble over the meaning of policy, feel free to move this discussion over to my talk page if you wish to discuss it further. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 13:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are multiple links to prior rivalry discussions (followed by deletions) - there are probably scores of others too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida–South Carolina football rivalry; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mississippi State - Vanderbilt football rivalry; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arkansas-Baylor_football_rivalry; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry. There's also a good bit of discussion at the project talk page here that is helpful. This isn't rigid - it's just what WP:NRIVALRY implies. JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My fellow editors, this discussion is to ask the question, "Should the article be deleted?" -- determining the content of the article may come in to play some about that question, but I do not believe it is a primary deletion question but instead is an editing question. Let me encourage all editing comments to move to the article talk page itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken and thank you for the gentle reminder. JohnInDC (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Günəşli, Lerik. Content already merged. ansh666 07:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guneshli waterfall[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this attractive (from the photo) but unremarkable (7m high) waterfall. PROD was removed without comment. The only source appears to support a statement about administrative reorganisation of the area, rather than the waterfall. PamD 23:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have already copied over all the content - changing my !vote to redirect. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The waterfall is in the village of Günəşli, Lerik, what are you getting at? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Starrcade. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starrcade (2017)[edit]

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

Just a specially named house show; no indication of significance JTP (talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to steer away from the PPV/Network event line of thought. Even if this were a full blown PPV it would be redirected to the main article until the event gets better coverage. This has been established in AfDs for previous PPVs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Rumble (2017).LM2000 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep put it in the wwe network chronology permanent please Fmm134 (talk)
@Fmm134: Why? It's not a Network event. JTP (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC) It will be![reply]
This has no place being in the Network chronology. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those were WWE Network events. Do you have a source that says Starrcade will be one too? Either way, it's got to pass WP:GNG, which this one doesn't yet.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Starrcade - Not a PPV or an WWE Network event, just a house show. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The event is called 'Starrcade' and I highly doubt WWE would bring that name back just to have it on a untelevised house show, more details will probably come when we get closer to the date so we should remove the match list for now as they are unofficial and subject to change. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: per above. So this is being promoted, as the keep proponents say? Not seeing reliable sources backing that up. We wouldn't keep this as an independent article if it was named "Joe Blow's Whackapalooza," so until there are sources for THIS event, we can't have an article on it. Nha Trang Allons! 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to Starrcade. Doesn't meet WP:GNG at present. It might be important, but we won't know until after it happens. Nikki♥311 22:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to Starrcade Untelevised house show. Too much speculation going on here about what it is, it's not it's own PPV now, it's just a ploy for the Greensboro area to pull numbers in the face of competing against WrestleCade which is on the same day nearby. If anything it should be a 'tidbit' on the Starrcade page and not be seen as anything that even resembles something close to what the original Starrcade is and was in importance. 6SyXx6 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to Starrcade, unless WWE confirms in the mean time that it will be a WWE Network exclusive event. Nickag989talk 13:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 10:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Speed of Life[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:NBOOK, largest portion of article text was copied from book's summary on a website which sells it. Author also has likely WP:COI given how close their name is to the author.

PROD with same rationale contested by page author with no rationale given. RA0808 talkcontribs 23:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was not able to find a single professional review of this book, the publishing company appears to be vanity press. Antrocent (♫♬) 23:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adebola Williams[edit]

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

Struggling to find enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is the primary focus of the Forbes article in the references. Ifnord (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Single interview source simply isn't enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to merit a Wikipedia biography. We can't write a biographical article based on a single interview. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like there are enough WP:RS for this online. Founder and related notability on Red Africa seems notable enough for inclusion on the wiki. Needs some TLC to improve sources and getting it up to snuff. Shaded0 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can be recreated as a redirect, though I'm not sure how useful it may be. As a side note, AFAIK capitalization doesn't matter as far as the search bar is concerned, though it could make a difference if there are two articles whose only difference in the title is capitalization. ansh666 07:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Estate Impact Investing[edit]

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

Originally blanked and redirected to Impact investing, but that was reverted by the author, which makes PROD inappropriate, thus we are at AfD. There isn't really much content worth merging in this article, so I don't think that is the best outcome. In my mind this is between deletion and redirection, and leaning delete at this time because the All Caps Spelling makes it an unlikely search term, though I wouldn't oppose a redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Right now this is original research. Do any of these reference actually mention impact investing at all? Do they mention it as it relates to real estate? Are the multiple WP:EL violations reliable sources, and could they be turned into references for specific statements? The article would have to be rewritten from the ground up based on new sources. Moving this out of draft space was very premature. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete term does not appear to be commonly used aside from a few firms that have tried to use it as their brand (e.g. while Google Scholar finds 5,140 results for "Impact Investing", it finds no results for "Real Estate Impact Investing"); article currently reads mostly like an advertisement. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Cheap though I agree that someone is unlikely to search in Wikipedia with the proper capitalisation. I suppose redirects are to cover the unlikely. L3X1 (distænt write) @ 02:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Guerrero[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 07:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corners (film)[edit]

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

A short film, never released in theaters, no indication it meets WP:NFILM, and nothing in searches to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- short films are rarely notable and this one misses the mark; no indications that it meets WP:NFILM / all plot / no sources. My searches do not turn up anything either. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 07:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eslam Magdy[edit]

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

Completing the steps on an incomplete nomination. The original nominator indicated that the article was self-promotional. To that I would add concerns about the sourcing, and about notability. There are sources, but they appear to be references to the subject's work - videos of times when they were interviewed, for example, or websites where their work is published. Good as far as it goes, perhaps, but what we need to show that the subject is notable are references that discuss the subject themselves. An article about this person would work, an article by them would not. Admittedly, I'm a native English speaker, so my searches in Arabic may not be comprehensive - but I am as yet unable to come up with adequate sources. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no where near passing the notability guidelines for journalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No notability, and WP:BIODELETE (kind of) applies anyways. ansh666 07:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Newell[edit]

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

A family member of Andy Newell has been in touch via the OTRS system and informed us that he died in 2014, asking if the article can be updated to reflect this. The family member was not aware of any reliable sources reporting Newell's death, and my own searches have not revealed any either. The article has lacked sources for many years and coverage to demonstrate notability seems to be lacking. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I forgot to note in my nomination that I explained to the family member that I intended to nominate the article for deletion, and that they agree that it is better to have no article rather than a poorly sourced one. I also explained that, should sources subsequently emerge, it might be possible to create a new article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop relisting it. Delete Per the noms well reasoned argument, and not finding anything to the contrary. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The relists were correct and proper, and anyway the third is usually the last. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Harris[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Edwardx (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting aspects, like early Facebook employee, but none of these are passable claims of notability. Most of the reference list is ephemeral non-RS, or trivial mentions (like her name in the obituary of one of her relatives). Agricola44 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep Mentions in Business Insider, Newsweek, and what I can't tell if its a blog or not. Will look into Bustle. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed !vote after further examining of sources. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 07:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pa'lante[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG. — Zawl 15:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 14:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Avery Bennet[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG. A few local bits of coverage mostly about one event, and a spat with a minor internet celeb don't qualify IMO. Minus a lot more info showing notability this doesn't belong. JamesG5 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated note, the links that were posted in response to my initial BLProd show that the poster runs a blog dedicated to the subject, and Bennet herself is posting on the talk page so clear COI and promo issues as well.
  • Delete does not meet GNG. The article reads like it was written by a friend. Lepricavark (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment? So I have no clue what I'm doing or how to do any of this I have followed Chris for years and love what she does and I feel like she deserves a nice pice on here. I saw her name in the requests to be written so I figured I could get it started. Can someone else just take over? I don't know what I'm doing. Theschooptalk (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is the article creator and seems to be the one running a "gossip blog" focused on Chris Avery Bennet SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 11:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Theschooptalk/Chris Avery Bennet, which will give them time to consult experienced editors of what to do with the content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:GNG, per nom. Ifnord (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not userfy. Note the edit comment when this was created, Inserted a bio based on interviews I have done with Chris. None of this is based on WP:RS. I have no fundamental problem with an article being written about this person if WP:RS can be found, but due to the first-party/COI nature of this version, I doubt anything can be salvaged. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hearsay (album). ansh666 07:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 Years of Hearsay Tour[edit]

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

May not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. Nerd1a4i (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hearsay (album) (with the history preserved under the redirect), the album this tour is promoting, in lieu of deletion. The content in the article may be useful to editors who want to improve Hearsay (album). One source I found was this review from News and Star, which notes:

    KNOWN for his smooth vocals and R&B masterpieces, 80's icon Alexander O'Neal is currently embarking on his 30 Years of Hearsay tour which stopped off in Carlisle last week.

    Cunard (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 16:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Iaconetti[edit]

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

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Person is active in their field with a substantial notoriety in broadcast television and reality television. Page cites reliable sources, person has had substantial media coverage. Meets WP:ENT #1, significant part in multiple TV programs of significant notoriety. Person has been part of a cast of two major television programs that garner an average of 7-8 million viewers. Significant part in television broadcast programs as correspondant. Person has appeared in major networks like ABC and CBS. Person works in notale media and radio platform such as iHeart Radio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cz463 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Minett[edit]

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

The claim to notability is vanishingly slender, and without a better source than Imdb... TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Dok[edit]

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

Notability. This appears to be anautobiography (rarely a good sign) and the only sources are twitter, instagram, facebook, and the Imdb. Where, incidentally, the resume includes the statement that this man is willing to work for free. Not a usual characteristic in notable actors. TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not yet notable per WP:NACTOR. I can only find passing mentions of him online in WP:RS online in English and Turkish. Worth noting that a second WP:SPA has taken over editing, and yesterday tried to fork the article (minus the AFD template) at Mustafa dok. Today a third SPA had another go, forking it at Mustafa Dok (Actor). I expect there will be several more of these. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilia Market[edit]

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

Unsourced puff piece. Market does not have a claim of notability, and article mostly discusses other things. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tentatively, essentially as a populated place article about a populated place with an important marketplace. It would be okay/good to move this to Ilia, Uttar Pradesh (currently a redlink) to explicitly cover the village, which apparently hosts a regional market serving 200 villages, per assertion in the Ilia Market article. Revise the article accordingly to describe it as a village which has a regional market. Ilia is apparently a village in the tehsil of Chakia tehsil (redlink) or Chakia Tehsil (of which Chakia, Uttar Pradesh is the primary town), which is one of 4 tehsils of the Chandauli district. American !voters in this AFD probably have not heard of Chandauli before, but it is apparently as big in population as the U.S. state of New Mexico, and we do not question having articles on each of NM's 33 counties, and on each of 17 communities in Catron County, New Mexico etc. Chaudauli apparently has 1651 villages, more than there are towns in New Mexico, but by assertion in this article Ilia is more important than other villages, and is 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) from Chakia, which might correspond to being a hundred miles from a county seat in New Mexico. Some editors from afar might prefer if coverage of populated places in India developed from the top down in a very orderly way, but many areas in Wikipedia developed from the bottom up. For example, coverage of National Register of Historic Places in the U.S. (which I have long been involved in) has been developing that way, in terms of articles about individual houses built in 1920 or whatever being developed, before any substantial coverage of them is developed in county list-articles. --doncram 02:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. There is a village named Ilia in UP, but this article itself is impossible to verify. The claim of 10000 population is not true considering that the village itself has a population of about 5500. There is nothing about the market in any source and I am not getting any sources in Hindi either. My guess is that there may be a local village haat (as it exists in most villages), but no such place as "Ilia Market". I am finding it really hard to get references for the elevation (can't find it in any government database). The distances to the various places are estimates. The location is not specified. The economy seems to be a personal reflection instead of actually citing a source. I am not sure if it is even worth spending time to clean this up. I don't mind doing research and starting a new article myself, but this one is not worth saving.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable, fails to cite any source. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DreamLinker above. MB 03:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 10:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fifi hook[edit]

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

This article was original research when it was posted in 2007. It includes text copied from [[6]]. It has been tagged for references since 2013. PROD was removed without improvement. It is a dictionary definition. It could as easily be called skyhook. Ten years is too long to claim, "There is a reference; someone will fix it soon." Rhadow (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn -- Keep -- issues all rectified. Rhadow (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page cited as the source of the text is dated 2008 and so that was presumably a {{backwards copy}} and so that's not a reason to delete. The subject is a notable piece of equipment like a crampon or piton and we don't delete these. Andrew D. (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Crampon has four references. Piton has seven. This one has none. Rhadow (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, given the number of ghits it appears to be a standard piece of climbing equipment, the Alpinist has an indepth article on it here including the history/development of the hook that also refers to a couple of books that talk of them, so its a keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With a simple WP:BEFORE style search, I was easily able to add the Alpinist ref above and three book refs to the article. This is a standard piece of equipment used in aid climbing, different than a skyhook, and is described in multiple reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG. The nominator really should take more care to perform a proper WP:BEFORE search before wasting other editors' time. --Mark viking (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dulith Herath[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on other claims to notability, but must note that, according to our article, Eisenhower fellowships are granted to people who are "poised to assume positions of substantial influence in their fields". Notability is not based on what someone is poised to achieve. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent list of sources provided by Aayan.v. Passes GNG based upon that. (That, my friends, is how one does a proper AfD defense...) Carrite (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sidelines I'm on the sidelines here, google news does provide about 2-3 reliable sources where the subject of the article is the main person that the news source is about, and google scholar provides 2 citations to him. I'm not sure weather the company kapruka.com or Grasshoppers is notable in terms of a company. However I note that these companies dont have wikipeida articles. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) PureRED | talk to me | 16:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Insurance[edit]

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

Organization does not appear to meet WP:ORG. The organization does sponsor a golf tournament that has some coverage, but there is little coverage of the organization itself. PureRED | talk to me | 19:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is editor "Pure Red" somehow related to this company? In any case, the article is a stub, one I hope will grow in time. The firm seems to be one of those secretive companies that serves only the very rich. I suspect it is useful and important to throw light on them. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in any way connected to this organization or even this industry; further, if I were, why would I nominate the article for deletion? That's a very bizarre question. Oh, I get it. My username. No, I've been on Wikipedia for far longer than this organization has existed. PureRED | talk to me | 03:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(This is where I would click the "I have read your message" button if we had one.) I was imagining someone from the company might want to suppress any information about it. In any case, what say we let this sit for a month or so to see if anyone can or will add to it? ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't hurt. I'll withdraw. PureRED | talk to me | 16:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 people arguing to keep are both very new accounts with extremely limited history. The suggestion to merge didn't find any support. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Kurdistan Region relations[edit]

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

Original research. Japan has relations with Iraq, not with "Kurdistan Region"; the article is mainly a list of news stories of Japanese government officials or aid efforts visiting the region. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Japan does not recognise Kurdistan as a State . any aid for Kurdistan is part of an overall program for Iraq. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is a fair proposal but I suppose it should be more considered in a careful manner. From the standpoint of Japan, as you said, there has still been no official direct relationship with Kurdistan Region and the Japanese officials paid visits there as a part of Iraq. On the other hand, Kurdistan Regional Government tends to call it "bilateral relations" (see the title of the official news released by KRG Department of Foreign Relations and the text of the official news released by KRG Cabinet), and besides, "The KRG welcomes institutional and diplomatic relations with Japan," emphasized at the end of the news by KRG Cabinet. Even though Tokyo still has a somewhat hesitation to open diplomatic relations with Kurdistan Region, Erbil is ready and looking forward to do so. That is why I created this article. I don't think it is categorized as original research. But if only "Japan does not recognise Kurdistan as a State ." is a sufficient and suitable reason for deletion in our community, I won't disturb it. Нанасу (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it currently stands. The material in the current article doesn't constitute a separate topic to Japanese relations with the regional countries as covered in Foreign relations of Japan (the article currently focuses on Iraq, but could cover Kurds in Syria, Turkey, etc). I'm sure that Japanese foreign policy in the area could be covered in more detail than what is said in Foreign relations of Japan, but the material here isn't a good starting point (a random list of diplomatic postings, humanitarian aid, and some other unsourced facts) and there's not an obvious place to merge it to. Maybe Japanese policy specifically towards the Kurds and/or Kurdish independence is notable if you use Japanese sources, and that might be a legitimate article topic, but the current material isn't relevant to that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I reviewed the article and checked the references The article may provide useful information to users Leodikap (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Foreign_relations_of_Iraqi_Kurdistan#Japan, which is the best article for this since any foreign contact by Iraqi Kurdistan is more important and unique than another diplomatic relationship of Japan's. Sources in this article and online should be able to support a paragraph or two in the parent article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G5 -- article created by sock of banned account (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musiclovereveryday). — CactusWriter (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rose Simon[edit]

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

Declined a G4 speedy request because this version includes more substantial sources that are more than just passing mentions. However, this appears to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT, in that all her notability comes from a single viral drawing. Taking to AfD for more eyes -- I'm a weak delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ONEEVENT certainly applies. Honestly, I think that G4 probably still applies (but as I'm not privy to the original page, I can't say for certain). The sources aren't anything that wasn't available at the time of the original discussion, and the concerns are the same. I think that G5 will ultimately apply as well, but that investigation is pending. agtx 21:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject meets WP:GNG. Has significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. She was featured on Good Morning America. The only way this wouldn't merit an article is if Good Morning America is fake news. It is not. Agtx should refrain from randomly nominating articles for deletion. It's a pure waste of good time. Thank you. –Tankertime13 (talk) 10:37 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Sock of blocked user. agtx 15:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO1E. We don't include people because they got 15 minutes of fame around one specific thing. Re: the GMA appearance: that's an interview and counts as a primary source, which means it wouldn't be considered when we are assessing under the GNG anyway. Our notability requirements for biographies require that someone show coverage over an extended period of time in secondary sources that are intellectually independent of themselves. We simply don't have it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Enough sources to meet GNG and the interview may be a primary source, but it is an independent third-party coverage as well, so it can be used to assess notability. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:SIGCOV, GNG requires secondary sourcing: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. If we accepted primary sources such as interviews as evidence of notability, then every person who appears on GMA would be all but guaranteed a spot, because the major morning shows typically have spotted them on some other program (radio interview, etc.) Most people who appear on Good Morning America are not notable and don't have entries precisely because we require all of the sourcing to be secondary for notability purposes: most US morning shows don't feature notable people. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete largely per WP:TOOSOON. Coverage appears to primarily refer to one specific drawing that went viral in social media. The rest [7] seems to be standard publicity that isn't sufficient for WP:GNG power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Manfreds[edit]

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

Nothing to show any notability as per WP:NBAND. Very poorly sourced. Notable members do not necessarily make a notable band. No hits, no coverage. Egghead06 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The band contains 6 notable members and is effectively a continuation of Manfred Mann. The suggestion that there's 'nothing to show any notability' is baffling. A cursory Google search for this version of the band finds plenty of coverage. At worst it should be merged to the Manfred Mann article. --Michig (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there on Google, because there's nothing of the sort in the article and having notable members does not make a band notable per se.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. That's a question you're supposed to ask before bringing an article to AfD. --Michig (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. --Michig (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I asked that question before nomination. If you read WP:NBAND, those are just the sort of references which do NOT prove notability ie routine reports of coming performances. That a band has appeared in Skegness or rural Somerset hardly makes them notable nor do references from the tabloid Daily Mirror and The Star. There is nothing here which aids any further the passing of WP:NBAND.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant coverage there in reliable sources. This is a continuation of one of the biggest British bands of the 1960s, containing several individually notable members. Does common sense not suggest that this is a notable band? They do satisfy WP:NBAND by the way, whatever you say. --Michig (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is routine gig coverage. The presence of notable people does not confer notability on a band. Which particular clause of WP:NBAND do they satisfy?--Egghead06 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1 and 6 for starters. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself here. --Michig (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They fail criteria one simple because everything shown is routine reports on performances. If a gig in Lincolnshire is all that is need to prove notability, the bar is set very low. They fail criteria six because, as I have stated above, you cannot confer notability on a band simple because the band had notable members. That is the kind of circular action criteria six warns against.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you're entitled to your opinion, but if your argument is based on a misreading of the notability guideline and misrepresentation of the available sources, I would expect it to be given little weight. --Michig (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for allowing me an opinion! I would reply by saying I believe I am correctly interpreting the notability criteria and applying common sense. The article is very poor (one external link to the bands own site!), there is nothing other than routine gig coverage, they have had zero hits, zero major awards, zero chart albums but they do contain some folk who were once in a notable band!! They are little more than a tribute act. Hanging on to an article of this quality does an encyclopaedia no credit and you know it.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just getting more ridiculous. --Michig (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to comment on the article and not on me and to remember WP:CIVIL. Thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. --Michig (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect, but not delete. This is more or less the same as these guys: [23] . Assessing merits of such articles is precisely why criteria guidelines include the term “may be notable”. It establishes that notability debates are not meant to be an inflexible, rote listing of criteria; it leaves the door open for common sense. Of course this is a notable subject, per Michig. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This band is no different from other spin-offs such as From The Jam, Slade II and UB40 Reunited. They are footnotes to the original bands with no individual notability other than containing notable band members from the original and notable band. Appearing at seaside pavilions and singing songs as a tribute act [24] does not merit a separate article.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge It's verifiable but would it be better as part of the Manfred Mann article? Allmusic has separate entries but the Encyclopedia of Popular Music combines them. Peter James (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 08:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel force[edit]

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

Speedy was declined due to article being clear. There is nothing notable and clear here from my POV. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The speedy request was A1, no context, and the I declined the speedy because the article did not meet the requirements of A1: "If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate". --Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aborted high school essay without context. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Possibly Keep – Regarding the !votes above, the article does provide some context, does not qualify for speedy deletion, and it is assumptive to refer to this short article as an "aborted high school essay", because it is a relatively new article created on 2 September 2017 (UTC). Perhaps the user may come back later to add to it, or perhaps not. Coverage in Google Scholar and Google Books demonstrates notability. An idea is to let the article stay in hopes that it will be expanded. North America1000 02:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Created on September 2? Hmm. Shades of Eternal September. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 18:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is still an obvious delete. It appears to be a definition from a textbook with the context removed, given under a misleading name. The references are arbitrary search results for "parallel force". When two forces are acting parallel to each other, one can call them "a parallel force", but it is not a term, per se. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete basically ad WP:DICTDEF when taken out of context, which is where we are exactly. Without going into force vectors, the topic is incomprehensible. Also, it doesn't seem to me that much of what the article says, beyond the definition, is true: in the airplane example, what matters is that in level flight the forces all cancel out and do not add up to angular motion, whether or not any pair of them are parallel. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the three forces here are all defined as being vertical (at least in the case of zero bank angle). Yes, the wing produces a net aerodynamic force at some arbitrary angle, but conventionally, it's decomposed into lift (vertical) and drag (horizontal), specifically to make this sort of analysis possible. That's a general method for solving many kinds of mechanics problems. Decompose all the physical forces into some orthogonal set of components parallel to the coordinate system axes, and then you can do this sort of parallel force analysis. I agree that the article is badly written. And probably also badly titled; something like Parallel force analysis would be a better title. But, both the general concept, and the specific phrase parallel force used to describe it, are important enough that it's worth having an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may be that what is going here with the disagreement is a difference in perspective depending on whether one's background is stronger in physics or engineering. Mine is physics, so my first reaction is to think the page is trivial and clearly should be deleted. I even wondered if the "keep" supporters were just having fun and trolling. But I follow the first reference and find a discussion that is pretty much what RoySmith was talking about (parallel force analysis). To a physicist it the textbook discussion looks like a long-winded description of a specific type case of high-school mechanics problem. The physicist cares about more general principles of arbitrary forces (and torques) summing up to some resultant, which is no doubt fully described somewhere here already. "Parallel forces" is then just an adjective and a noun, not a topic. The mechanical engineers apparently care about discussing the specifics of special cases, and this is one of them. The page may still be trivial and not worth keeping. But what do people with a mechanical engineering background say about it? -- Gpc62 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC), Gpc62 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly keep - article has real content with citations thanks to other user's efforts. It seems to be an actual useful topic. One thing to consider I haven't yet looked into - would it make sense to merge this article with any others? (I.e., does this topic fit nicely into another?) --Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the textbook sources added since the nomination (Nice work, RoySmith), this looks like a standard sort of engineering mechanics problem. Multiple independent reliable sources show this topic to be notable in the engineering field and the article is currently a reasonable. stub. Parallel force system is perhaps a more common name, with 2,500 GBooks hits and discussion in many engineering mechanics textbooks. --Mark viking (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 14:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Riad[edit]

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

This BLP is unsourced and unverifiable Atsme📞📧 12:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that there is nothing I've found that qualifies or can hope to find that passes Wikipedia:Professor test.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are reference in the article as :

Nubian Encounters: The Story of the Nubian Ethnological Survey, 1961-1964 Hatem Moushir (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem Moushir (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you could find some of his books in this link https://www.geo-house.com/personalities Hatem Moushir (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. Only citation of the stuff does, and there is too little in this case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
http://www.hindawi.org/contributors/19152686/
Hatem Moushir (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Power~enwiki (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Hatem Moushir provided good sources for this article and i reviewed them its good Leodikap (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- being a recipient of a state award is highly suggestive of notability:
  • Appreciation Awards went to nine people, along with the prize money of EGP 200,000 each: Zakaria Anany, Mostafa Damarany, and Nabil Abdel-Hamid (Literature); Samir Khafag, Ahmed Shiha, and Sabry Mansour (Arts); former culture minister Shaker Abdel-Hamid, late Islamic philosophy professor Mosfata Labib and Mohamed Riad (Social Sciences). [25]
The article has been sufficiently improved in the course of this AfD for me to iVote as "keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film Companion[edit]

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

After declines at AfC Draft:Film Companion the creator just moved this to Mainspace after three declines. It's spam on a non-notable businesss by COI likely paid editor. The draft is up for deletion at MfD. A patroller removed the G11 tag so bringing to AfD. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP as I cannot find significant coverage from secondary sources about this company. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: with Anupama Chopra, the founder of the website. If you cannot find independent coverage of the site, see this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this SEO spam created in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. MER-C 12:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anupama Chopra as she has coverage relating to founding, and hosting/inteviewing on the website Atlantic306 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't see much non-promotional stuff to merge, but feel free to merge something if it's not promotional. Onel5969 TT me 16:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article tends to be quite promotional. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage. Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-Notable, fails WP:NCORP & WP:GNG --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El film magazine[edit]

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

Declined PROD. No references or claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Using the search term "مجلة الفيلم" I was able to find these [26], [27] and [28]; but that's about it. Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit instead of Delete there aren't any references about subject Leodikap (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? If you've got strong references, could you link them here please? Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 18:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirvaan Vinayak[edit]

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

Non notably person. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I found 15K Google hits and all of the references on the first page have the subject as the main focus. I didn't look too hard but I think the nominator looked even less. Ifnord (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. The only notability of this individual is limited to participating in a competition, WP:TOOSOON. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For the reason above. He has nothing to his name other than competing in a small reality show. — FSOJM791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:09, September 19, 2017‎.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 08:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pressinck[edit]

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

The article cites no references, and my searches didn't turn up anything except a couple of social websites. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. (NB - created by a WP:SPA.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G.E. Lemmon[edit]

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

Source search 1 and source search 2 don't show enough significant coverage to warrant a Wikipedia article per biographical notability standards. Also note that the article is written like a hagiography. DrStrauss talk 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. apparently a significant historical figure. Founder of a town that took his name. That's sufficient for notability anywhere, just by itself. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously a historical figure. Naming a town after this person is significant. The wording of the article seems to me to be neutraly worded. Here is another scholarly article on him, which can be found in JSTOR and Google Scholar:
Sanderson, Nathan B. "“We were all Trespassers”: George Edward Lemmon, Anglo-American Cattle Ranching, and The Great Sioux Reservation." Agricultural history. 85.1 (2011): 50-71.
---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Next, I discovered a book that covers this subject. But first I want to mention that two of the three references appear to be book length coverage of this subject. I think so far, including the above academic article, this says this subject is notable per WP:N and WP:BIO. So below is the book I discovered. It is a PDF copy is located at Digital Commons University of Nebraska:
Sanderson, Nathan B. (June 2011). Dean of the range: George Edward Lemmon, open range cattle ranching and the development of the northern Great Plains (PhD Dissertation). University of Nebraska.
---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable individual after whom a town was named. Per above, passes WP:N and BIO. I also agree the article is neutrally worded. -- Begoon 07:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the above editors, notable and neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly Notable, he has a town named after him, and enough coverage to justify this articles existence . --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not a suitable topic, never heard this discussed with reference to Australian PMs ... only US presidents Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WHY is it not a suitable topic? What policy or policies does it violate? And why should we delete something because YOU have never heard of it? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because the only sources are a blogpost and a union-bashing "opinion piece" that only mentions facial hair in passing. What's next, List of Prime Ministers of Australia by eye colour? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The policy it vilates is WP:SALAT: "some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus can change, but it is incumbent on someone challenging a prior AfD result to demonstrate that something relevant has changed sufficiently to establish the change in consensus. There's no indication in the nomination, or elsewhere, of anything like that here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best this is ridiculous. EVERYONE has facial hair. It's a non-defining characteristic. If this exists then why not List of Prime Ministers of Australia with blood. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing to suggest the previous AfD was incorrect. The nom must demonstrate why a page should be deleted, particularly if nominating an article which has already been kept at an AfD. Simply stating they haven't personally heard of a specific topic does not seem a very credible argument. AusLondonder (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator has expanded on why he believes the page should be deleted in his response to Lugnuts' question above. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless I have come from a different universe, I cannot really see why knowing that Australian Prime Ministers have facial hair would inform us about their policies, their administration plans, their skill in international relations, their terms in government and so on and so forth. Is there such a list for Prime Ministers of other nationalities? Vorbee (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be. They've largely been deleted, for the same reasons. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a non encyclopedic cross-categorisation. The subject does not meet WP:LISTN as the subject has not been covered by independent reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely plain ridiculous that Keep was the result of the previous discussion. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly article, EVERY male has facial hair. Nothing notable about degrees of facial hair growth. The weight of opinion should have resulted in the article being deleted after the previous deletion nomination. Unencyclopedic cruft. WWGB (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not a topic that we need to maintain an encyclopedia article about. WWGB is right that every adult male has facial hair, making this really a list of every prime minister Australia has ever had at all except Julia Gillard. The only question is whether he grows it out or shaves it off, and that's got nothing whatsoever to do with what's encyclopedically relevant about prime ministers.Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, fails WP:NLIST. No way a list of PM's with beards is encyclopedic. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete what is even defined as inclusion level of hair. is Julia Gillard disqualified? what next List of Deputy Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair? LibStar (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so hasty to disqualify Gillard [29]. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft of the most ridiculous kind. That the previous debate was closed as delete was absurd and a clear supervote, so I don't see a need to demonstrate that "consensus has changed" - consensus was misread the first time. Frickeg (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absurd listcruft. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's snowing. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, carrying on from some of the above "deleters" comments, this article is as ridiculous as having an article, say, List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair, oh, oops, wiki has one. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS LibStar (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes i know, just highlighting the facetiousness(?) of some of their comments. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which just goes to show how stupid such a list can be, for it includes Harry S. Truman. Not one of the images in that article shows Truman with facial hair. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majai[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources that substantiate any claims of notability in this article, or any other criteria for notability. Fails WP:BAND. Rogermx (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majai should not be deleted. Majai has had at least two releases on important independent labels. Toll Says no More was released on Big Fish Recordings and Phoria was released on Armada music. Meets requirement of WP:BAND. Trancer5007 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2017

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete: Big Fish Recordings isn't notable, so that leaves one song on one notable label, Armada Music - and that wasn't the original release label anyway... "Phoria" was released on Tetsuo before the remixes were released on Armada's digital music platform. And the requirement to pass WP:BAND is for two albums released on notable labels, not two songs, so they don't meet that notability requirement. Richard3120 (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't Delete Close AFD": Big Fish Recordings is an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable. Lazy Rich, Porter Robinson among others are notable. In addition, Phoria release with Armada was an original which featured an exclusive release of Phoria which was the Big Room Mix a remix reworked from the ground up and NOT released on any other label. The Big Room Remix was on several of Markus Schulz mix albums as well. Phoria was also released on Paul Van Dyk's label Vandit and his year double cd mix. Also Phoria was released on Tetsuo as well as the song Strange. Tetsuo is another notable independent label with a roster of performers as well which are all notable. Another release Lightwave was released on Monster Tunes which is another independent label with notable artists. We can go on and on. I'm not sure why you are trying to split hairs here as Majai releases were widely supported and played in the trance scene. I have no more time to waste on this fruitless argument. Close this or I will report this to Wikipedia. Trancer5007(T) 19:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with "splitting hairs" – you haven't demonstrated the notability of any of the artists or labels simply because you say they are notable. In order to pass Wikipedia's ntoability guidelines they need to have had coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, such as newspapers, music magazines, or credible online music websites... not blogs. Neither you nor I decides when this AfD is closed, that is up to the administrator. Richard3120 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Richard. If you have any independent reliable sources that prove the notability of Majai, please list them here. I will let the administrator decide this afd. Rogermx (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't Delete Close AFD": The releases listed above are the reliable sources. You should do your homework before you make an opinion on whether you believe a record label is notable or not. The fact remains those labels are notable and they have multiple notable artists on those labels. The argument has already been presented. And yes you are splitting hairs. Trancer5007(T) 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.119 (talk) [reply]

Suggest you read WP:RS. We need to see something tangible that proves A) that a particular record label is notable, and B) that Majai released an album (not a single) at that record label. Or show some other proof of notability. Rogermx (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my homework, and it's not my opinion – neither those labels nor those artists are notable by Wikipedia guidelines for WP:ORG and WP:BAND. I also notice that your only edits on Wikipedia are the creation of this article in 2008, and then nine years of silence until this AfD crops up? Richard3120 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have not done your homework. It is strictly opinion you are forming your comments on. The labels listed are notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Just because you are not familiar with electronic dance music does not justify your statement. Refer to guidelines again WP:BAND. Regardless whether I edit or not does not have anything to do with validity. I could contribute further but that is a separate issue. Trancer5007 (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very familiar with electronic music thanks, I spent fifteen years of my life going clubbing, and I am familiar with the labels you mention and some of the bands on those labels. That doesn't mean any of them pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. And Majai most definitely do not pass WP:BAND. You say they pass point five of the guideline, but as has already been pointed out above, the guideline states that they should have released two albums, not singles, on notable labels. And the labels are not notable, because they don't pass WP:ORG, even though you and I are familiar with them. Majai certainly don't come anywhere near passing any other criterion of WP:BAND. Richard3120 (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tunku Harun[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - notability is not inherited. Vorbee (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. References appear to be short "tabloid"-like articles focused on his wife and their engagement/marriage (WP:NOTINHERITED). A redirect to her page could be possible. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the above comment about references, it should be pointed out that all of the references given for this article are websites. Vorbee (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 08:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rixie, Nevada[edit]

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

May not meet WP:GEOLAND because it has been asserted on the article's talk page (at Is there such a place?) that this alleged unincorporated community may not actually exist. North America1000 16:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only permanent traces of this location come from incidental mentions by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Mountainzone.com used to list this place as a reference location, but it gave nothing substantial. No entry in GNIS or any other evidence of a populated place. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gene93k above. MB 03:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durr-e-Shahwar Syed[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. You can't be notable because your father was notable. Her notability was mainly due to her father. No in-depth coverage about her in WP:RS. She fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In fact, you can be notable merely because of who your father was (c.f. Tiffany Trump,) but, as Nom says, there is no WP:SIGCOV, at least, none that my searches turn up on this name. Moreover, article doesn't make a claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not pass notability guidelines for an academic, which is what she would be notable for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus . (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bernard[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Likely promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original article was poorly written, sourced, and verified. I have cleaned up the page to include non-promotional biography, reliable sources with independent in-depth coverage, and proof of notability due to multiple international awards and a career directing and producing for multiple high profile people. The person is also a notable figure in virtual reality production. Multiple indications of notability. I strongly recommend this page be kept now that it is in line with Wikipedia guidelines and requirements. This person is also referenced in multiple Wikipedia articles of notable people and works. Amandadoyle543 (talk) 12:00 PM, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiteration of strongly recommended to keep. (See comment in original discussion - thank you) Additional edits have since been made by other editors to ensure neutrality, accuracy, and notability. It is now in excellent shape. Amandadoyle543 (talk) 12:24 AM, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrix (music producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. I failed to locate any significant and reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — Zawl 15:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I can't find any significant coverage in WP:RS either, just blog mentions about one of his songs inspiring an Alan Walker single. The upload of this selfie as "own work", if true, suggests either autobiography or WP:COI. On the other hand, he did have a single on a Billboard chart for 20 weeks, peaking at #24 [30]. Odd that there's so little online coverage of him or the single. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. MacTidy: it's often tricky to find online coverage of dance music producers and DJs, compared with rock and pop acts – one reason is that they tend to prefer keeping a low profile and not courting much in the way of publicity, and the other is that the magazines most likely to have interviews and features about them (e.g. Mixmag, DJ Mag, etc.) have little or no online archives, unlike Rolling Stone or NME. Richard3120 (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Richard3120:, changing my position to Keep accordingly. I notice you haven't taken a position yet on whether to keep or delete? Mr. MacTidy (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching back to weak keep, per discussion with Zawl below. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. MacTidy: The author of this article and uploader of that selfie was offering on Wikimedia Commons to create English Wikipedia articles (here too), and has claimed rights never attained.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: indeed, the article creator is a pest and a likely sockpuppeteer, but the right response to that per guidelines and process is to warn (and block if necessary), rather than delete an article that meets notability criteria. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources means the subject does not meet notability criteria. The above "weak keep" vote, if taken at face value indicates we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, lack of assertion of notability, and WP:COI concerns.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Johnpacklambert: @Jeff G.: he meets WP:MUSICBIO by having had a single in a Billboard charts for 20 weeks, peaking at #24. If we delete this article, then what happens to Nova (Ahrix song)? And Ahrix that links to it? I can't see how we can delete an article on a musician who clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO with a solidly charting single. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mr. MacTidy: In order for a musician to pass WP:MUSICBIO#2, they should have a single or album on any country's national music chart. The national music chart for the United States is the Billboard Hot 100. Ahrix never had a song peak on this chart. "Dance/Electronic Songs" is a component chart which would be acceptable in notability measurement if there are significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the topic. — Zawl 14:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. In that case, I suppose I should switch back to weak keep. Thanks for the explanation. And as WP:NSONG also specifies national chart, that would imply that the song article should likewise be deleted. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. MacTidy and Zawl: thank you for the explanations, I used them to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova (Ahrix song).   — Jeff G. ツ 00:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see WP:BIODELETE for more info). ansh666 08:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Zlamal[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. A search throws up nothing of note. On Discogs here there a few entries as having produced a handful of rather obscure records. A COI editor has repeatedly added comments that he is included in 3 vanity press books published by American Biographical Institute and International Biographical Centre. The only 2 editors adding to this article are WP:SPAs that both claim to be acting under instruction of the subject. Domdeparis (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC) The subject, Alexander Zlamal, has requested that this page be deleted. Earlier he asked me to add the following sentence, but then decided that the process is futile. Removal of 3 references (those easiest to verify) from--and constant interference by some "musical expert" into--my bio-professional data in the Wikipedia can be understand only as an intentional personal insult. Alexander Zlamal[reply]

As you may or may not know anyone can write an article about anyone on Wikipedia and the subject of that article cannot request the deletion of the article unless it is for a valid reason. The major contributors to this article are claiming to personally know the subject. If you as an editor wish that this article be deleted please don't hesitate to vote. The reason given in the nomination by myself is that he does not meet notability criteria. I have removed 3 references to vanity press biographies and you can click on the wikilinks and read what the article s says about these who's who that most definitely do not count as reliable. Just because the removal of these sources is in his eyes an insult is most definitely nota valid reason and if I may be so bold a little childish and seems like he/you are throwing their/your toys out of the WP:PRAM. Domdeparis (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Mr Zlamal wants the article deleted, and no one is making an argument to keep it. I removed the text above because I put it there at his request, and then he decided it was pointless. Please go ahead with the deletion of the article ASAP.Greydrizzle
Please do not remove text from a talk page. If you wish you can redact a text as I have done. Domdeparis (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator withdrew in a comment in this discussion. North America1000 10:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Khan[edit]

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

No working references Rathfelder (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting he isn't notable, but the references which used to be there no longer work. A BLP needs some references. Rathfelder (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You could have perhaps templated the article appropriately then. Getting it to Afd might not be appropriate, in the sense that we generally don't prefer deleting notable articles because the references don't work. Would you wish to consider withdrawing this Afd? Lourdes 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added some of the sources to the article and spruced it up. Tell me what you think. Thanks. Lourdes 02:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much improved. Happy to withdraw the suggestion that it should be deleted. Rathfelder (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Lourdes 09:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing editor/administrator: the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. Thanks. Lourdes 03:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 08:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Other's Gaze: Spaces of Difference[edit]

The Other's Gaze: Spaces of Difference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article is about a temporary exhibition that is seems only to exist to promote the exhibiton. fails WP:NOTPROMOTION WP:GNG This reads like a brochure for the exhibition. Domdeparis (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I cannot find critical discussion of the exhibit in sources . There are a number of false positives and discussions of the individual pieces, but not the exhibit as a whole. Without that, I don't think this is a notable exhibit StarM 00:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page is promotonal. Self-sourced by links to the museum itself. Lack of widely available refs from reliable sources. 198.58.170.90 (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 10:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Falcone[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. Certainly doesn't have enough sources. Nerd1a4i (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: lack of participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 12:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - most of the source material comes from an interview. Would make this a strong delete except that Dennis was some sort of occasional character on the Opie & Anthony radio program. More good sources needed. Rogermx (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his level of being a DJ is not at a level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Whiteley[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG the sources are at best passing mentions in WP:RS ad 1 review of his show Domdeparis (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no comment on notability but if this stays it needs a lot of cleanup, especially to get rid of inline URLs. Canterbury Tail talk 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehul Devkala[edit]

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

fails notability. Only passing mentions in provided references. No indication of any published book other than few poems in literary magazines. Looks like advertisement. Nizil (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehul Devkala is a well known name in Gujarati and outside literary world.Sahitya Akademi Delhi published english translation of his poems in last December issue of Indian Literature under the title "21st century voices from Gujarati Literature."There are articles on the young writers in the same wikipedia category whose books are not published and lesser known then Mehul Devkala.For example Chintan Shelat. Mehul Devkala's poetry has been appreciated by legends of Indian literature like K.Satchidanandan, Sitanshu Yashschandra,Ganesh Devy and Nabaneeta Dev Sen.Considering his page as advertisement only shows lack of knowledge in the field of contemporary Indian literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhar Sen (talk • contribs) 09:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shekhar Sen: The page Chintan Shelat will also be deleted. Gazal world (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil I would like to contest the deletion of article on Mehul Devkala.Wikipedia editors , whoever creating or editing literary pages need to be aware of contemporary literary world in particular upcoming prominent names.You can refer the Indian Express front page link of their national edition given in the article.They quote Mehul Devkala as Prominent name from Gujarat as a poet.He was one of the poet invited by Gujarat state government's Kalautsav 2016 held at Godhra.He was the only young poet along with Khalil Dhantejvi,Krishn Dave and other well known names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.31.65.179 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Shekhar Sen: and IP. Every article is evaluated on its own merits so the existance of other article does not mean that your article too should exist. Every literary journal/magazine publishes poems/poem translations of any poet which does not mean that he/she becomes notable. Notable means what important work the author had done. I can not find any notable work cited in any references. Publishing book or having won an notable award or two helps to establish notability. The article does not fulfil criterias mentioned in notability guidelines (click to read it in detail). That Indian Express ref which passingly mentions him is "prominent" does not make him prominent. His contribution defines his prominence. That article is about singing some protest letter to the President. Such news does not establish any notability. Being invited to one event "Kalautsav" is not much of importance. Just being at an event does not estabish he is important. You have called him "upcoming prominent name" but we can not have article based on what he will became in future. See Wikipedia:Notability to know what can be and can not be included. Please provide independent third party references to establish he is notable either in English or in Gujarati. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more details. Simply, please present some sources such as articles, interviews, criticism "about" him or his works etc published in books, megazines, literary journals etc. to establish that he is important person presently to have his own article on Wikipedia. You have told that his poetry is praised by some people than provide the proof (reference) of it like thier article on Devkala's poetry etc. We can deal with other issues of article after establishing his notability first. Hope this helps and clariefies your questions.--Nizil (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Chintan Shelat is already deleted.--Nizil (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[reply posted on article page is moved here.]
@Nizil , Kalautsav is not the only single appearance.He did many such poetry readings at state and National level.If you have gone through the Reference no 4.Kitabkhana then you would come to know that four day poetry festival was inaugurated with Gujarati poetry theme and Devkala was the only name along with well known poet Uddayan Thakkar from Gujarat.Kitabkhana is known to host prominent poets at Mumbai.Also reference was published in Indian Literature December 2016 issue published by Sahitya Akademi ,New Delhi,Highest literary body in the country,in the 21 st century's important Gujarati voices along with prominent names like Sahitya akademi winner Kamal Vora and others.Sahitya akademi published english translation of Devkala's poems along with brief Bio Data.If you want to verify then I can share it with you and Its an official journal by Govt of India and published by India's highest literary body Sahitya Akademi.
@Shekhar Sen:. I know about Sahitya Akademi. My point is we can not consider a poet notable enough only because his few poems are published in Akademi's journal. Hundreds of poets published this way in Akademi's journals so we can not consider all of them notable only due to this single reason. Kitabkhana ref you provided is primary source so can not be considered it as neutral. Being invited to a literary festival is not enough to prove notability. Apart from public poem recitations, does he has published any book? Or have any important contribution in literature (some poems or some public recitations are not enough)? Have won any notable awards? Or his works evaluated by any critic and that criticism published somewhere? Does he fulfils notability guidelines? You can mail scanned copy or pics of that brief biodata from Akademi journal for consideration on my talk page:User talk:Nizil Shah (go to left side panel and find [Email this user] to send email). Please message me here after you mail. We also need references to prove whatever information you have posted on his article too. Please try to find some articles and criticism "about him and his works", his interviews etc published in books, magazines, newspapers or any other reliable third party reference.--Nizil (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that this person is mentioned as a "prominent name" in subhead of the Indian Express article] implies notability, but English-language searches do not provide evidence of notability. The Gujarati Wiki might be a better place for this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence available which establish him as prominent.--Gazal world (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 10:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh s sastry[edit]

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

Not notable person Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 08:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damini Bhatla CH[edit]

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

There are no sources in this article to corroborate the claims made about singing in film. Her own facebook page says nothing of the kind and clams she is working on her Bachelor of Arts in Music at Hyderabad. This article appears aspirational and promotional. Dammitkevin (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual Multiscript Plant Name Database[edit]

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

Couldn't find significant independent coverage. Article's sources are affiliated. Reads like an advertisement.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. It certainly needs re-writing though. There are at least 76 references using this source in other articles, and it is a useful resource for plant names. As the article says, it is linked to, and hence to a degree recommended by, highly reputable online plant databases, such as GRIN, IPNI, etc. I don't have time to re-write it now, but it can be done. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In many cases this is the most readily available source for translating plant names into multiple languages, and thus sees frequent recognition and use in other large databases and in sources all over the web. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here is proper entry point to the database if I understand correctly. At the first glance, it looks to me as a useful and important specialized database, and it was quoted multiple times, exactly as Peter coxhead tells above. The page is poorly written and disorganized, however this is not a valid reason for deletion. Yes, it should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcheck[edit]

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

Seems to barely meet WP:GNG, but I am not convinced that the subject meets WP:ORG. There is significant coverage from news outlets like the Irish Times, but they were mostly commentary made by Michael Rochford, the director of the company, which does not establish the notability of the subject itself. Alex ShihTalk 09:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcheck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Company provides meaningful primary source insights into the automotive industry. Where this is commentary it's data-driven and unique commentary. This has been used by national news used data provided by Motorcheck to add substance and support coverage of an ongoing investigation into the automotive CPC industry in Ireland. There are further examples of media coverage beyond those supplied in the article already. Google News searches for the last few years will show these. JennahowlTalk 11:29, 11 September 2017 (GMT)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After further research using Google Scholar, I've discovered that motorcheck.ie and their research has supported scholarly works. I've added a "further reading" section to reference these papers to add to article's notability as per the info box atop the page. JennahowlTalk 16:50, 12 September 2017 (GMT)

  • Delete -- an advertorially toned page on a private company that does not meet WP:NWEB or WP:NCORP. Insufficiently notable as a publisher of sales data either. To establish notability here, the article would need to provide sources that discuss Motorcheck as a source rather than merely listing articles using it. I was not able to find SIGCOV to meet GNG either, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Company has received significant press coverage to pass SIGCOV. Disagree with previous comments regarding notability especially as the company has been cited within scholarly articles. The article can be an important hub of research for readers looking for further information on the Irish motor industry. Topperpartdeux (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2017 (GMT)
  • Comment -- Thanks for your feedback - K.e.coffman. The further reading section now includes scholarly works which cite motorcheck as a primary source of industry research. SIGCOV over the past few years is available to meet GNG through searching Google News Ireland. JennahowlTalk 10:35, 14 September 2017 (GMT)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no in-depth intellectually independent references that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Getting name-checked in a national newspaper because a quote was provided and published in the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is most definitely not SIGCOV by any stretch of the imagination. What is required is an intellectually independent reference (actually, two) that provides in-depth information about this company. -- HighKing++ 18:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xtian de Medici[edit]

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

Failing WP:NCORP. Very little in terms of sources to be found on google. Some mention in passing of the fashion label. Probably more sources about the person Christian/Gunner de Medici than the fashion line, leading to questions about inherited notability. The references provided 1: local news, 2:dead link, 3:dead, 4:some 8 year old porn stuff (which is a lifetime in porn years), 5:dead/times out, 6:mention in passing, 7:mention in passing, 8:dead/times out, 9:mention in passing. Also considered redirecting to Gunner de Medici but dismissed this as there is a strong indication this may also fail WP:PORNBIO given lack of indication of awards or notability for establishing a new genre, but mainly due to weak or insufficient main stream references. Article also seem to suffer from link rot. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Rubio[edit]

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

This article subject is not notable. There is little depyh of coverage, mostly brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no citations or reliable sources. --Oscar_. (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous arguments. The picture's copyright status also seems to be unclear. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Explicit, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KickBar[edit]

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

A new product brand with no indication of notability (or even significance). bonadea contributions talk 09:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - had a go at rescuing this but it doesn't seem possible - hardly any reliable source coverage. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a notable product. No independent reliable sources cited and I have been unable to find any substantial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – heavy use of primary sources in its history and a Google Search doesn't produce their product as the first 10 results. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously AfDed material. An article on this subject has been deleted earlier this month as Kick Natural Energy Bar. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick Natural Energy Bar. I've requested a speedy deletion under G4; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'd missed the previous discussion - careless of me. Thanks, K.e. It is (or will soon be) a G5 candidate as well, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasperna. --bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

This seems like the perfect example of why we have {{not a ballot}}. There are multiple !votes by the same people making the same points with a couple of "keep" !voters bringing "arguments" such as "imdb is a source" and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Of those who actually argued about the subject's notability based on our policies and guidelines, the opinion is split about whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability or not, hence I'm closing this as no consensus. While Ritchie was the only one arguing for redirect, before renominating that should be considered as an alternative because no matter her individual notability, her name is a likely search term.

Regards SoWhy 14:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Jordana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no news articles, or reliable independent sources where the subject of the article is the main person with whom the article is about --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 09:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE. I made several sourced edits and they were all reversed by same overzealous editor. Editor claims any changes are made to disparage. It is impossible to have factual information on this wiki with that type of editing. Jordana was not a key member of Cobra Starship and was fired. Jordana did not have a big role and was only ever mentioned due to her relationship with Stern writer Benjy Bronk. Jordana was never hired to be on Vanderpump Rules but did work as hostess at Sur Restaurant. According to her own social media Jordana no longer works at Sur and has moved to Colorado. Jordana appeared in a Playboy special edition in 2002 which would of made her 14 according to the edited year of birth on this wiki. Enough is enough.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterned (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Jordana is no longer working at SUR but was 100% filmed for the Vanderpump Rules show and will have a role on it in the next season. That's a fact. If not, then this can be bought up again in the next two months when the new season airs and we see whether or not she's on it. But again, I think she's accomplished enough in her career to meet WP standards. Also, I make all my edits on this account or with my sincere IP Address when I'm not logged in. The User above uses many different IP addresses and accounts to make disparaging edits about Jordana (from her age to poorly sourced material). Their opinion should not hold much merit when it's clear they have an agenda against this individual.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeafK1 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Your attack is uncalled for. I have not made any edits besides the ones as a logged in member. I did not and would not change her year of birth to 1971 knowing the criteria used by Wikipedia. You have reversed my edit on Jordana being fired from Cobra Starship when the source of the article was mtv.com. There is no verifiable citation that satisfies Wikipedia criteria that Jordana is a cast member of Vaderpump Rules.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterned (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. Jordana was a key member in the band Cobra Starship (a band that has sold Platinum records) for their first 2 years, had a big role in arguably the biggest radio show of the last 30 years in The Howard Stern Show, has written for publications like XO Jane and Marie Claire, and is slated to have a predominate role in the upcoming season of the Bravo reality TV series Vanderpump Rules.[1] [2] For months a couple of persistent individuals have tried to discredit those Vanderpump sources as unreliable, but in it she's exclusively asked if she's on the show and she responds with a definitive yes. She has since been seen in photographs with the cast working at the restaurant the show is filmed at. The fact that she was in a platinum selling band like Cobra Starship, provided a huge storyline on the Stern Show for close to 5 years, wrote for some big online publications, and is now going to be on a very popular reality show all warrants that she has a Wikipedia page.
  1. ^ Staff, Radar. "Meet The Newest SUR-ver! Howard Stern Radio Star Shakes Up 'VPR' Cast". Radar Online.
  2. ^ Staff, OK. "SUR-VER WARS! ELISA JORDANA JUST JOINED 'VPR,' BUT SCHEANA & LALA WANT HER IN THEIR ALLIANCE". OK Magazine.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeafK1 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Any other converage of the subject besides radar online where she is the main subject of the article? --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 09:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeafK1 (talk • contribs)

  • Favor Delete Still say delete, the OK Magazine link redirects to the radar online, it would be highly dubious proposition at best to consider the second link reality buzz tv passing WP:RS --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 13:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's an official interview with Elisa stating it's true. The publication shouldn't matter (even though both publications have their own Wikipedia pages), that's as reliable of a source as you can have. It's coming straight from the camel's mouth. And even without Vanderpump Rules, the contributions she's made with Cobra Starship, The Howard Stern Show, being in other reality TV shows, her published articles, and even being in a film... how can you discredit all of that?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.78.212 (talk)

  • Comment The subject of the article is never a reliable source which is why Wikipedia requires secondary sources. Very few criminals would be guilty if we took their word for it. Sterned (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research, we don't know who Elisa is, Wikipedia has a policy of using secondary sources to vet primary sources, so your argument violates WP:NOR policy.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 20:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The majority of sourced articles seem legitimate and her IMDB page seem to back up the career claims.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)

  • Note- The above unsigned post by FSOJM791 has no edit history other than the 19 September 2017. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - she was the 'keytarist' and backup singer in Cobra Starship (which indicates she was only with the band two years not three - leaving in December 2006, however given the band was formed in 2006 her period of time with the band would have been less than two years), she didn't write any of the band's songs (according to the respective items on the band's releases) and there are no independent verifiable articles provided that indicate that she had any influence on the band (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Then there's the statement "After three years in the band, she broke free to make an attempt at a solo career." - broke free?? It goes onto state that she released, sorry 'launched' two singles however the reference cited links to a YouTube video performing the song "Online Sweetheart", no indication that it was her song or that it was released as a single and no mention of a second song/single, "Fuck You I'm Fine" (see WP:MUSICBIO). Then her radio career appears to be limited to a number of guest appearances on The Howard Stern Show, given the number of guests that have appeared on the Howard Stern Show this is hardly notable in its own right. The reference cited in the article states "that she is also a staff member on the show, and has been a comedy writer on the program for over a year." not "Jordana was also hired as a writer for The Howard Stern Show for four years starting from late 2011 to December 2015" as stated in the article. Then in the section on her being a writer the article states "Jordana has had columns featured in XOJane, Marie Claire, Yahoo, The Washington Post,and The Rumpus." however the references cited all appear to be articles written by regular columnists, where Jordana is interviewed not where she is the primary author (see WP:AUTHOR). In summary there is not enough here to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason of this page to be in Articles for deletion. what I see is someone try to take down a celebrity wiki page because they don't like them is not an excuse. Just because a celebrity is not working at the moment to your knowledge, is not a reason to get rid of their wiki page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhof84 (talk • contribs)
Comment You may be disillusioned to discover that Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, decisions are not based on counting votes but rather assessing the merits of each argument against the P&G]--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 09:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The Howard Stern Show staff per AfD #1. The sources supplied by Robman94 are either WP:BLPSOURCES violating tabloid journalism or self-published (ie: non-independent) works, while a search beyond this brings up similar things like "Howard Stern raves about Elisa Jordana and Benjy Bronk Nude Register To Vote Photo" (makes you wonder how Jeremy Corbyn managed it fully-clothed). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: regardless of political persuasions and affiliations, I think we're all glad that Jeremy Corbyn did manage to do it fully clothed. Richard3120 (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete passing mention, minor apparences, a small part in a band, none of this adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has been greatly improved and modified. The ambiguity in age and time spent in different careers has been greatly modified to what it should be. I understand simply that primary sources are mainly from the person involved and secondary from other reliable sources which is not the person involved. In a sense, both of these sources has been provided in the article to greatly buttress notability. Remember that most Wikipedia pages started thier wiki journey in a pretty bad shape and grew to where they are. This page still has a chance of continous growth and improvement with continous contributions from wikipedia editors.KingMak1 (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A deeper look into claims in the article shows most do not hold up to the sniff test. Jordana did not part ways with Cobra Starship to pursue a solo career she was fired and announced it herself [1]. According to Jordana she was cut from her extra role on Sharknado 4 "But when I got cut from the movie (you can only see the back of my head)" [2]. In her own words on August 15th of 2017 she is not on Vanderpump Rules. [3]Sterned (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.mtv.com/news/1550855/cobra-starships-gabe-saporta-speaks-out-after-keytar-kerfuffle/
  2. ^ http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/my-dog-starred-in-sharknado-4
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/ElisaJordana/status/897486303020765185
  • Note- Sterned has already voted. Elisa had a non-speaking role in Sharknado 4 imdb. How she departed from Cobra Starship is irrelevant. Also, the fact that he uses a tweet from Jordana where she's clearly joking as an actual reference shows how silly his entire argument is. LeafK1 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been already pointed out that this is not a majority vote so if I write Delete a hundred times it is not counted as a vote. Calling valid points silly will not change any minds. What will are facts and I presented those. Sterned (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sterned (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic even up till now. And in his own very words - Very few criminals would be guilty if we took their word for it. So a twitter statement is in no way credible. Fired or left, all are still processes of parting ways.KingMak1 (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article stands, the notability standard is met by the reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per very weak KEEP responses above and WP:NOTINHERITED. Endlessdan (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Nasseri[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL because he has not played in a fully professional league or at senior international level, and about whom there doesn't seem to be enough significant independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. The previous AfD preceded his signing for a club in the Superettan, but that league isn't fully professional. And as noted at the previous AfD, the first-team appearance for Bury never happened, and playing in youth international football is specifically excluded by WP:NFOOTBALL. Struway2 (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 18 September 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. I'm not currently seeing any evidence to support the claim that he made an appearance for Bury. Fenix down (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep superettan is classed as a fully professional league where he has made 20 appearances. Along with the international recognition from Iran National Football team. He has a legitimate transfer value on tranfermarkt & features on games consoles such as Football manager & FIFA.
  • Delete - Article doesn't satisfy the general notability guideline. Only online coverage consists of statistical database entries and trivial mentions in routine match reports and transfer announcements. Jogurney (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete According to soccerbase.com he hasn't played for Bury, so this article already has information that doesn't match up. There does seem plenty on content online about the player to maybe pass GNG if given a go. However I am inclined to delete on the evidence I've seen. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martie Salt[edit]

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

This article was deleted, pretty much unanimously, at AfD in 2007. It was recreated in August 2016, with a handful of edits since then. I see nothing in her career between 2007 and today that would suggest notability. Given that it was deleted emphatically in 2007, it is proper to bring it to AfD now. Safiel (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all the sources I can find are localised (from Orlando Sentinel) which gives no indication of widespread attention or biographical notability. Perhaps a passing administrator could offer a comment on whether the content is significantly different from that of the 2007 version. DrStrauss talk 09:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nn, despite her "keeping Channel 9 in the number 1 slot in 2015" (most likely why her article was reborn). Toss out with the morning paper. — Wyliepedia 05:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When challenged, neither keep !vote could provide sources to back up their claims. SoWhy 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Juarez[edit]

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

See WP:TOOSOON about who may be up-and-coming. The references listed are the only information found by Google about an actress with this name, and two of the roles are future roles. There is no in-depth coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created by SPA whose 2nd edit was creating this article, so there's very likely some sort of COI. IMDB and 23andme are not RS. This is way TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not quite sure why this one is even up for debate. Actress clearly passes Nactor and GNG. Cindlevet (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if there were RS that demonstrate such, but I could not find/see any. Could you please add the ones that you have to the article? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, without prejudice to relisting in the future if her career does not progress further. The roles she's played so far seem legitimate enough to assume more will be coming her way in the near future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)

— FSOJM791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. Neither of the "keeps" addresses the main problem, which is that we have an unsourced BLP. (A dead 23andme link and an IMDB page are not RS.) I've looked again and cannot find anything in terms of acceptable sources. The article is almost all OR and even its claim for notability is couched in CRYSTAL, e.g. "Jessica will appear in the film ICEBOX..." and "she will also be appearing in the New Netflix...". Flippant claims that this person clearly passes ACTOR and GNG are unconvincing. Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The weak keep above is actual an argument for deletion. We keep or delete based on criteria that almost always mean once notable, always notable. So if her career does not yet make her notable, we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify If someone might be notable in the near future, but isn't now, we can do this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aaron Rossi. SoWhy 15:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seismatik[edit]

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

Very little information about a highly non-notable band. JE98 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - do you have any additional reliable sources which indicate that the band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG in order to support your claim of notability? I notice that you are the creator of the article which means I am assuming that what's in the article is the best of what's available, and it isn't much. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Premeditated Chaos:, that is all that I have, but multiple means two or more. Anyways, it can be redirected to Rossi. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • multiple means two or more - yes, but it's not only the number of sources that matters, it's the depth and reliability. Two small articles from Blabbermouth in 2012 which both quote heavily from a press release and are otherwise almost the same article barely qualify as one source let alone two. The Melodic.net review is a single paragraph so again depth is questionable. The Protonepedals link is broken but appears to be a business not a professional music review site which makes it unreliable as a source. I'm not opposed to a mention at the Rossi article but there's definitely not enough sourcing to keep this as a standalone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aaron Rossi or delete. Sourcing inadequate to support keeping as a standalone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HealthTeacher[edit]

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

Not a notable company. No independent references that mention HealthTeacher. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Self-referenced article. Ref. #1 is a HealthTeacher announcement; Refs. ##2 & 3 don't work, but #3 was supposed to be the "Story" of HealthTeacher from its website. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus appears to be that a) the references in the article aren't enough to meet GNG and b) NHOCKEY apparently isn't met either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Orlando[edit]

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

Fails to mee WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. What sources can be found are routine coverage or passing mentions. Nothing in depth as is required by GNG. DJSasso (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources in the article are enough for substantial coverage meeting WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Indeed, the article creator splashed a bunch of references across the page (hoping, perhaps, that people might say "Ooh, there are several sources!" and not go from there to examining them). What he failed to do, unfortunately, was find reliable, independent, third-party sources. When one gets past the blogsites and the league's own site, there are only two reliable sources cited: Yahoo Sports and the National Post. Neither of those sources (or indeed any other) provide the subject with more than incidental, routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from supporting notability by WP:ROUTINE. Since the subject likewise does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, notability cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My analysis is consistent with Ravenswing's. The coverage in independent reliable sources is not nearly significant enough to sustain notability - mostly coverage of a single incident in which the subject was suspended, generating a few mentions of the subject's name. Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. WP:NHOCKEY does not include any women's leagues, so is irrelevant here. Hmlarson (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 6 of NHOCKEY apply to women's players. (Not to mention any of the others can if a women plays in any of the league mentioned) And I assume you have some sources that go in depth on the player to claim they meet GNG? -DJSasso (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeesh. We've gone down this riff before; since this person's notability solely hinges on her being a hockey player, NHOCKEY is the pertinent notability guideline, and you can with quite as much justification claim that since NHOCKEY accords no presumptive notability to Paraguayan leagues, it does not govern Paraguyan players. Beyond that, I'm with Djsasso; which sources, precisely, do you claim satisfy the GNG? Ravenswing 05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went through all 6 pages of hits for "Elena Orlando" on G-News. She gets mentioned quite a bit (including one sentence about being a nurse in The New York Times and Sports Illustrated), but nothing that I would consider significant coverage as described in GNG. The majority of anything close to in-depth about her is the one event about her getting suspended. Yosemiter (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Yosemiter, whether or not NHOCKEY applies (it should) there has been no effort to prove a GNG pass. @Hmlarson: you stated here that NHOCKEY, "looks like it needs to be updated with women's leagues." Well this is an apparent rank and file player from two different top level women's leagues, so it is a golden opportunity to make a case for the NWHL and the SDHL.18abruce (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a league that is not deemed "notable", the league, team, and player articles sure have a lot of blue links. I wasn't familiar with SDHL, but I will take a look and start working on those that WP:GNG is applicable. Any other top leagues I should take a look at? Hmlarson (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Why do you think these deletions are happening? Because we are cleaning up those blue links that shouldn't be blue. And I would point out, its not the league that isn't notable. It is that not every single player that plays in the league is notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not think that we would have to educate a veteran editor who's worked on many sports articles on some basic facts. But sure, if you insist. If you're genuinely asking why there are so many blue links for NWHL players (as opposed to just another snide crack), the explanation is simple. As per WP:NOLYMPICS, all women hockey players competing at the Olympics are presumptively notable. Twice as many teams compete in the women's pool at the Winter Olympics as compete in the NWHL, with larger rosters, and it should come as a surprise to no one with any familiarity with sports that the sixty-someodd women on NWHL rosters at any given time are predominantly Olympians. Ravenswing 22:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remarkable that that is a priority for you in this case - but to each her own. Hmlarson (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing articles on non-notable topics should be a priority for everyone in every subject. I just happen to edit ice hockey articles so I often nominate ice hockey players. In this case a new league being started caused a spat of articles to be created because people assumed all professional players are notable, and that isn't the case. This article isn't special we literally have around 10 ice hockey players up for deletion every week. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NWHL started in 2015. This article was created in June 2017. For a league that is not deemed "notable", the league, team, and player articles sure have a lot of blue links. Hmlarson (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the creator of the article @Boopitydoopityboop: notified of the proposed deletion per WP:PRODNOM? Does that editor know they can comment here? Hmlarson (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes exactly. New league, only two years old. Again the league is deemed notable. You seem to keep missing that fact. Just because a league is notable doesn't mean all the players in it are, notability is not inherited. Notability comes through coverage by sources. Not every player in the NWHL was the subject of multiple in depth articles. If you think they were then proove it. Find a couple players who played a single game in the league and go find multiple in depth articles on them. If you can do that then likely the NWHL would end up on NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And still no discussion on how she meets GNG, I give up.18abruce (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that the really the criteria for the men's leagues? "Find a couple players who played a single game in the league and go find multiple in depth articles on them." That's it for inclusion on WP:NHOCKEY? Everyone else here agree? Just want to confirm for future reference. Hmlarson (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmlarson: The criteria is GNG. NHOCKEY was created (and has become more stringent) based on players that have passed GNG. I think DJSasso was merely pointing out that players who fit into NHOCKEY #1 (one game in the NHL, etc.) pass GNG 99% of the time. The same cannot be said for most hockey leagues unfortunately, men or women. The "couple players who played a single game in the league" is that if their only claim to notability is the NWHL, then finding at least a couple players that fit that description and pass GNG would be the basis to start a discussion on the league's players inclusion to NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't understand the need for WP:NHOCKEY or other sport-specific notability guidelines when WP:GNG supercedes them anyhow. Hmlarson (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what I meant. I meant NHOCKEY criteria does meet GNG and that is why it is so strict. Any league not on there means there is no presumed notability (and the NWHL is a hockey league so therefore it can be used). NHOCKEY (and all NSPORTS) is meant a quick reference for what would likely pass or fail based on the subject's participation in said sport (and that is the only assumption of notability for this subject). So based on failing NHOCKEY, this subject must pass GNG on its own coverage. Do you have any other reliable and significant depth sources about the subject to contribute? Yosemiter (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmlarson: 18abruce has a definite point here. For a month now, you've been complaining just about every time an AfD on a female hockey player comes up, and now you're descending into sneering. A SPA hotly defending his or her pet creation can be excused for not understanding how notability guidelines or a consensus-based encyclopedia work, and that the way to defend an article at AfD is to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the other editors that the subject meets the GNG and/or pertinent notability guidelines. An editor of your experience, with many edits at AfD, over a decade on Wikipedia, and who's been involved in sports notability standards, by contrast, has no excuse. If your real agenda here is to argue against sports notability guidelines, I recommend NSPORTS' talk page.

In the meantime, I posed a question above that you've ignored, and have indeed ignored every time I've posed it to you on some of these AfDs: what specific cites in this article do you claim meet the GNG's requirements? Ravenswing 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] WP:GNG must apply to all articles no matter the sports guideline/essay per the "Applicable policies and guidelines" section of WP:NSPORTS and core Wiki notability guidelines, and thus supercedes WP:NHOCKEY. There is no way for you to guarantee that every article "given a pass" by N:HOCKEY meets WP:GNG, but if you'd like to claim that, it is what it is.
As mentioned above, the references included in the article reflect WP:GNG especially considering the context that women athletes historically receive ~2% of sports coverage. ref. "When will the news catch up?" Good thing that's changing. Hmlarson (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is claiming NHOCKEY is over ruling GNG. Quite the opposite, when I state in my nomination that it fails both what I mean is. It fails WP:GNG and because it also fails WP:NHOCKEY it doesn't get a reprieve from deletion. NHOCKEY is used to save articles from deletion (when sources are likely to exist), not prevent them from having an article. In order to meet GNG sources have to go into significant detail and can't be WP:ROUTINE coverage. None of the sources on the page are in detail about the subject. They are all either primary sources that are passing mentions, game summaries/signings that are routine coverage or other passing mentions. She very clearly fails GNG. What we are asking you is which of these sources you think go into significant detail on the subject so as to meet the requirements of GNG. And we don't claim every article that gets a pass from NHOCKEY meets GNG. Typically we always state 99% or often 99.9999% in comments. We know some will not meet GNG still and is why NSPORTS mentions they can still be deleted even if they meet them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] @Djsasso: "They are all either primary sources that are passing mentions, game summaries/signings that are routine coverage or other passing mentions." Strange, are you looking at the same article? If so, would it be too much to ask for you to present your evidence one by one to support your claims? Hmlarson (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you won't say which of them goes into detail I might as well.
  1. Blog
  2. Not independent - School newspaper
  3. Blog
  4. Routine coverage of contract signing
  5. Passing mention in regards to a suspension in a game
  6. Passing mention in regards to a suspension in a game
  7. Passing mention in regards to a suspension in a game
  8. Passing mention only contains name in list
  9. Routine coverage of contract signing & blog
  10. Passing mention/Routine coverage of award winners
  11. Routine coverage of contract signing & primary source league site
So which of them do you think is meets the requirement of significant coverage, and remember even if there was one which there isn't, GNG requires multiple. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the sources (written at the same time as DJ), in order of usage on her page: Local blog, local routine coverage from her college team, fan blog dedicate to covering up-and-coming hockey players, routine signing article, good source on the one event but still only mentioned in one place, good source but same event and only a mentioned twice, same event, routine training camp announcement, blog and routine signing announcement, a mention that she won a community service award (one of four awarded), and primary signing announcement. All seems very run-of-the-mill and routine to me. Even the one incident articles are more about the incident and the suspension over anything about her as a person or even as a player (Yahoo!' — "Whale forward Michaela Long and Riveters defenseman Elena Orlando were each given one-game bans"; Nat. Post – "The NWHL announced on Friday that it was suspending Long and Riveters defenceman Elena Orlando for one game apiece and issuing warnings to New York’s Morgan Fritz-Ward and Bray Ketchum", "he Player Safety Committee determined that Orlando, who immediately joined the fight after a legal line change"; etc.) Yosemiter (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For sports articles in general, are SB Nation citations discredited as blogs Djsasso (talk · contribs) across the board? Strange that it would have its own Wikipedia category: Category:SB Nation (though questionable if needed), be operated by Vox Media and have "content-sharing partnerships with Yahoo! Sports, CBS Sports, USA Today, Comcast and the National Hockey League (NHL)." Do you consider it like the Daily Mail? Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source Hmlarson (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still arguing for the sake of arguing. Still avoiding doing the one thing that would save the article and shut us all up. If you're seeking to convince us that you're promoting a personal agenda, at that much you've been quite persuasive this past month. Ravenswing 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmlarson: In regards to SB Nation (where the "B" at least used to stand for "Blogs"), I find it a highly useful site for routine day-to-day info on specific teams. However, as stated in the second sentence of SB Nation: "the site comprises 320 blogs covering individual professional and college sports teams". It is simply a host for highly specific content sites. Those sites generally only write articles that reference other reports or are their analysis/opinion of happenings with the team. In this case, the publisher is the NY Rangers' site Blueshirt Banter. They solely focus on the Rangers, the Rangers' affiliates and prospects, and other relevant NY hockey content that they feel their very specific readership might be interested in. Usually I would consider any SB Nation site to be too heavily biased (just like most blogs) to be considered independent from the subject matter. Possibly a reliable source for background information (although they do like to re-publish unconfirmed rumors if it might be of interest) and definitely a helpful resource on team news, but not one I consider worthy of meeting the standards of a source for GNG. Hopefully that answers the question. Yosemiter (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yosemiter: I frequent SB Nation sites/blogs also -- perhaps initially drawn to them by the frequency of their use as citations in other sports-related articles on Wikipedia. It's no Daily Mail - for sure: SB Nation Editorial Board and reach "Independence standards" are subjective (see also Fox News and RT as a reliable source), thanks for sharing your take. Hmlarson (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is a lack of the significant coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Yankees' Holiday[edit]

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

Rate Your Music certainly is not a reliable source or independent review by a credible journalist. After a WP:BEFORE search, no in-depth coverage was found, failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only found a single source, thus a GNG failure. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WiFi-Box[edit]

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

Could not find sources that provide in-depth coverage of the topic, clearly not notable, unsourced since creation. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional blurb of a commercially trivial product. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6th Annual BTVA Voice Acting Awards[edit]

6th Annual BTVA Voice Acting Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the AFD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behind the Voice Actor Awards it also fails WP:EVENT notability criteria due to lack of reliable sources. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't make sense to create an edition when neither BTVA nor BTVA Awards are notable enough for their own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per AngusWOOF. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: also per AngusWOOF. Couldn't find any other large sources for it either. Nomader (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katara Hospitality[edit]

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

PROD removed without addressing underlying GNG. Subject is a government department, and a small one at that. Notability of its subsidiaries (hotels) does not confer notability on the holding company Rhadow (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 08:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as article's sourcing (based on many WP:RS demonstrates GNG. Schwede66 18:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is more than enough sourcing for this one. The article even references Reuters, a very high quality news source. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources such as references are ok and no prob Leodikap (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: References fail the criteria for establishing notability as they are either PRIMARY sources (or entirely based on PRIMARY sources such as PR or company announcements) or mentions-in-passing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. A common misunderstanding frequently encountered at AfD and repeated here is that if an "independent" source that meets WP:RS publishes an article, it meets the criteria for notability. This is not the case and an entirely incorrect interpretation. A source may be "independent" and print a company announcement and this fails as a reference for the purposes of establishing notability. The reference/article itself must be "intellectually independent" - simply publishing a company announcement with no independent opinion or analysis fails the criteria for establishing notability. Similarly, the Reuters article attributes facts to anonymous "banking sources" and is therefore unreliable. Perhaps the !keep voters above can point to two references that they believe meets the criteria and does not fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing++ 12:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few reliable sources I could find which discuss the subject: Forbes Middle East, Arabian Business, Arabian Business 2. I'm not sure if the Forbes Middle East article is a press release although it's written like one. Arabian Business is a reliable source and both articles have known authors. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elspamo4. I have looked at the references you provided. The Forbes Middle East article fails as a PRIMARY source since the article indicates Katara Hospitality is credited as one of the authors and therefore the article is not intellectually independent. The first Arabian Business article fails for a number of reasons. First, there is no journalist credited with having authored the article. Second, it appears that the article was written by the CEO or by the marketing department of Katara since the headline states "CEO Hamad Al Mulla explains why". Finally, the article states "Katara Hospitality CEO Hamad Abdulla Al Mulla tells CEO Middle East during the celebration of the rebranding" which indicates that the information was provided during a marketing event and therefore the article cannot be considered independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The second Arabian Business article also fails WP:ORGIND since the article is part of public relations and only contains quotations and information provided by the company with no intellectually independent analysis or opinion. -- HighKing++ 13:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – See source search parameters below under the company's former name. North America1000 12:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I looked through the first few pages and I'm still not seeing any references that meet the criteria for notability under the company's former name. -- HighKing++ 14:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 08:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Rappaport[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Some basic local coverage but nothing significant or in-depth. Was involved in non-notable orchestras and a non-notable society - no credible claim to notability in article or through Google. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Allen Hulse[edit]

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

Non-notable author, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Unlikely to see any more coverage, as the last book authored was in 2000, and the page has changed little since its creation. Rockypedia (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete author whose work is said to be notable to a group, but no sources provided to show this other than his own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Routine author who is not the subject of substantial independent published coverage, therefore failing GNG. I don't believe his collected works to be either best selling or seminal. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Alouise[edit]

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

nonnotable -- the only RS is an announcement about a single show DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wyzo[edit]

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

Questionable notability, laundry list of PR and other issues. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just corporate promotion for non-notable quasi-vaporware. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete delete 1. notability fails GNG, 2. promotion WP:NOTPROMO. Widefox; talk 21:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am not finding evidence that this browser attained notability. It had been previously suggested on the article Talk page that the brief product reviews on Techcrunch and Lifehacker constituted notable coverage, whereas I regard them as simply the coverage which any new product needs at launch and not evidence of attained notability. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Petry[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phitsanulok F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable club. No reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of significance, let alone notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, has not participated in a national competition. Not seeing any indication of wider GNG ad would not expect to see much more than routine match reporting for a club playing in a low level regional league. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering WP:FOOTYN specifically, the article does note (in the table) that the team did play in the Thai FA Cup in 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2017. This highlights video is referenced in the 2017 article.[31] --Paul_012 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Fenix down. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - passes FOOTYN has played in the national cup multiple times. I misread the league cup column. Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tons of coverage via Google News search.[32] A lot of it is routine match coverage, but there's still a huge amount dedicated to the club's performance, team composition, player acquisition, sponsorships, etc. on smmsport.com alone,[33] indicating that the subject easily satisfies the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - match reporting doesn't usually count as it is, as you say, routine. PLus very low level teams get local news reporting on their matches which wouldn't count in any instance. Would be seful to have provided a translation of any sources you believe to be non-routine though. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this? "Naresuan Warriors" Phitsanulok F.C. champs of Northern Region [in the first leg of the 2017 Thai league 4] (from the print daily Khao Sod, 15 Apr 2017)[34]

    Phitsanulok are already favourites to win and earn a promotion, since they're a large team who previously played in the Thai League 2. This season core players ศุภกร นาคน้อย, บายาโน่ ซอบเซ่ เฮไน, ดิอาร์รา อาบูบาการ์ ซิดิก, สุเมธี สุกใส etc. made splendid performances, winning 6 out of 8 matches, drawing 1 and losing 1, earning 19 points. Their offensive game is currently the best of the regional league, with 22 goals scored, the most in Thai League 4, and losing only 7. Barring a major upset, Phitsanulok should win the Northern Region without any difficulty.

    --Paul_012 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Participated in several national-level tournaments. See the Season by Season Record section in the article for FA Cup and League Cup participations. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • See this reference [35] for the club's matches (the site only has club's data back to 2014) including FA Cup and League Cup matches. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KnightMove (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Federer–Roddick rivalry[edit]

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

Way too one-sided to ever be a notable "rivalry". It has therefore been deleted in 2010, see first discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federer–Roddick rivalry and the talk page. The page has been recreated in 2012 without any increased notability - unless you count as such that Roddick won one more game to bring the total score to a glorious 3:21, and then retired. It's a pity for the properly prepared text and the load of work invested, but not notable remains not notable. KnightMove (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd keep this one. Not because it was a true rivalry (Federer pretty much pwned Roddick), but because it was perceived as such by so many sources. You couldn't flip on a sports channel for several years in the 2000s without a commercial on the rivalry, a sports anchor talking about the rivalry, or the two of them talking about the rivalry. It was everywhere. Because of the sources, and because it's been here for 5 years, it should probably stay. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunck(click): So, where are those sources? Did anything of this survive in a quotable form? The article lists only three references, covering only two individual matches between the two. --KnightMove (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create the article, so it absolutely needs much better sourcing. That doesn't mean we get rid of it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could add these 4 if you'd like: [ABC News, New Haven Register, World Tennis magazine, Times of India. The thing is, during their heyday, someone would have created this article and there would have been no question it would have stayed since the press glorified it beyond it's actual merits. Using hindsight, it might have been a mental and endorsement rivalry, but the results not so much. While it was blown out of proportion at the time, it's not wikipedia's place to pass judgement on what happened in the past... we only report it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do think this rivalry gained a lot of coverage, even if it was one-sided. I think what Fyunck(click) found goes a long way to showing GNG is met. For those criticizing the one-sided nature of the actual rivalry, its about the coverage and not the competitiveness/balance. Navy–Notre Dame football rivalry is very one-sided, yet clearly it's notable. Connecticut–Notre Dame women's basketball rivalry is not only one-sided, but most of Notre Dame's success came in a brief period of time, yet this is a premier woman's basketball rivalry and has a good amount of coverage. Note that my point is not WP:WAX, but to show that notability is distinct from competitiveness. For the point about there being a previous article that was deleted, it garnered two "votes" (three counting the nom). Not exactly a vast consensus. Besides, the issue then seems to have been not any sources about the rivalry itself. With what Fyunck found, I think the previous discussion is now moot and we are looking anew. In other words, what changed between 2010 and now is someone bothered to look for and find references that was not found before. So I say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm convinced and withdraw the nomination. Thanks to Fyunck(click) and RonSigPi.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J947(c) (m) 19:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016[edit]

List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are multiple problems with this page. Much of it is sourced to people's personal Twitter accounts. Regardless of the sourcing, these endorsements generally aren't relevant to anything. And the entire page comes off as promotional. KingForPA (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This directly conflicts with your arguments to keep List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016 as made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016. I will be back later to justify a vote for Keep.Mpen320 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_September_18&oldid=1142617400"