Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 September	10 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alix Generous[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:ONEEVENT. Her only claim to notability is a TED talk; nearly every source cited is either about the TED talk, or is her own writing. She has done some scientific research, but it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. SMDWiki (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one TED talk does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a Google search and the results are mostly her own websites/social media, and stuff about the TED talk. I agree that the TED talk doesn't make her notable and that the article should be deleted.SonOfSauron (talk) 06:09, 16 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. There isn't consensus that this is in fact crystalballing; several people argue that sources indicate that this is likely to happen soon and are covering it already. Sandstein 09:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election[edit]

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

The existence of this article violates WP:CRYSTAL. That page specifies that future events should only have articles 'if the event is notable and almost certain to take place'. While it is certain that the UK Conservative party will have another leadership election at some point, there's no fixed schedule for doing so, and currently there is no vacancy. Theresa May has declared that she intends to remain as leader until the next general election, meaning the next leadership election may not be until 2022 or later. While there has been plenty of media speculation about if and when she might resign or be replaced as leader, it seems to me that there's no need for an article on the next leadership election until it is actually called. (Or, by fairness, we ought to have Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election as well; that's currently a redirect, but it was previously deleted at AFD on the grounds of being pure speculation, just like this is.) Robofish (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. I think the nomination sums it up pretty well. I have to say I came across this page a little while ago and was tempted to nominate it for deletion myself as the entire article is just speculation --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 00:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per WP:CRYSTAL, and because the article as titled would become obsolete whenever the next Conservative Party leadership election actually took place (since it would no longer be the "next" election, but the just past one). PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL as I understand it doesn't prohibit this article. This is a notable event that is 'almost certain to happen'. As WP:CRYSTAL explicitly says, 'dates are not definite until the event actually takes place', so I don't follow why a lack of a set timeline means that this article shouldn't exist. PohranicniStraze's argument that the article should be deleted as if it stays it will need its name changed doesn't make sense to me: what about Next United Kingdom general election? What about other election articles without fixed terms? To quote WP:CRYSTAL again: 'if preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented'. There is no need for original research because as with the next US Presidential and the next UK general elections, there is a lot of speculation to document and draw upon from reliable sources: the well-documented speculation WP:CRYSTAL requires. Robofish says the same in their nomination at the top. I can't see how deletion is a view based on policy. Ralbegen (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise that we do have other articles about future elections. I would say the difference is that by law, there has to be another general election within 5 years; that is definitely going to happen. But there doesn't have to be another Conservative party leadership election any time soon. I recognise there has been a lot of media commentary about this, but it could always be merged somewhere else, like Premiership of Theresa May and Second May ministry. By the way, I noted that Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007 was created as far back as April 2006, long before there was any official announcement that Tony Blair would resign[1], so by that comparison maybe this one's OK. But I'd like to see what other users think. Robofish (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL uses the phrase 'almost certain to happen', which I think this election is. The only circumstances under which there will be no Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election is if May's leadership lasts until the end of the party. There's no reasonable doubt that it is going to happen, and it has received significant coverage, so I think it should stay — and I definitely don't think that it violates WP:CRYSTAL, as both your nomination and all three delete !votes have relied on. Ralbegen (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the next Conservative leadership has been help, this will have to be renamed "Last Conservative Leadership Election". Vorbee (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We follow reliable sources: that's the basic principle here. We are drowning in reliable sources discussing the next Conservative Party leadership election. That it hasn't been formally called is beside the point. There are events unfolding now and over the last few months that are part of the process and everyone knows it (and is describing it in reliable source publications). The article is not speculation because it is describing manoeuvering and activity happening now. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they had a Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election for the 2016 leadership election. so its quite fitting for they as well have one for this next election. Torygreen84 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see several notable events, the topic is 'quite certain to happen' with reliable references, it would cover the issue of WP:CRYSTAL D8jang (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's trivially easy to do a Google search and find multiple in-depth sources discussing the next Conservative leadership election. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL only applies to future events where there aren't enough sources to confirm that the event WILL happen by normal means OR if the event is too fat out into the future. And as far as I can tell, this article passes both criteria. ToThAc (talk) 15:26, 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. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Staplers[edit]

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

Notability and complete lack of sourcing.

Possibly rename to "Staplers Road, Newport, Isle of Wight" which is a demonstrable real road and does probably give its name to some minor area around it. But even then, there's no evident sourcing out there to support even that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND as this is a historic area and there are plenty of sources out there. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you'd care to add some of those "plenty of sources". Because if they aren't there, they don't count. And in what way is this area "historic"? What happened here? Where is that recorded? I don't dispute that there is a long road called "Staplers Road" running out of Newport and such roads do tend to give their name to places, but it needs to demonstrably pass WP:GNG if it's to stay. WP:GEOLAND does not overrule this, as there is no indication that the area has any sort of legal recognition under this name. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the history note this 1866 Ordnance Survey map features the hamlets of Staplers, North Staplers and Little Staplers, as well as the geographic features Staplers Hill, Staplers Heath and Staplers Copse, as well as Staplers Turnpike and Staplers Farm.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the good points made by Pontificalibus, note that, in no case, does WP:GEOLAND suggest that anything be deleted because there's always the option of merging into some broader geographical region. Andrew D. (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are sources out there, I'm having difficulty finding them. Searching for "Staplers" alone brings up mainly devices for inserting staples. Searching for "Staplers" and "Isle of Wight" or "Staplers" and "Newport" both bring up mentions, but mostly only for traffic incidents. Not saying that the term doesn't have relevance for locals, but it doesn't seem to have wider notability sufficient to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this source and the sources linked therefrom: [2]. Also discussed in Hockey, S.F. Quarr Abbey and Its Lands, 1132-1631. p. 73. ISBN 9780718510879.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that using the road's name to describe an area? Or is it claiming that the road takes its name from an earlier name of Stakelhurst or Staplehurst for the area? If so, that would be a good claim for it, but the sourcing is still a bit vague. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the road would have been named later. The source I gave describes Staplehurst as a parcel of land which was a constituent part of a Manor and then it became a Monastic grange. So it was first an area of land, and by the nineteenth century had become known as a settlement outside of Newport (e.g. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9jsAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA135 1). For geographic places with sources supporting their historical existence I would tend to err on the side of keep at AfD because it's highly likely that sufficient sources could be found offline in historical documents and archives, should someone be inclined to look for them. If we look to WP:GEO the relevant part would be "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." It may or not be a "legally recognised place" at the moment, having been subsumed into Newport, but it certainly was historically. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:19, 11 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 Buyer brokerage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buyer agent[edit]

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

Deprodded because deprodder felt I failed to do WP:BEFORE, but I was unable to find any sources to expand this beyond a WP:DICDEF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The customary term is buyer's agent. The article is not ready for prime time. In the real world, a single reference from HUD is not enough. The law of agency and real property requires a much deeper exposition. Rhadow (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Buyer's agent exists as a redirect to Buyer brokerage, I see. The omission of the apostrophe would seem to be a reasonable typo for a search term, no? Should we simply redirect? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buyer brokerage as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 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) 21:16, 9 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) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeongseo Trade Telecom[edit]

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

YTT fails corporate notability guidelines. A search for sources yields only two links in independent sources, both of which are mere passing mentions here and here. No indication of anything other than a run of the mill company. DrStrauss talk 20:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with opinion of user DrStrauss. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:53, 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) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 11 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. It's clear this isn't a straight deletion, which is really the important decision. Beyond that, opinion is pretty much split between keeping it stand alone vs. a merge/redirect to Ben Affleck. MichaelQSchmidt proposed some sources, and nobody refuted them, so I'm going to assume they're legitimate. If people want to continue to discuss the possibility of a merge or redirect, that can happen on the article's talk page without need for further AfD involvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney[edit]

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

This is not a notable film. The only claim of notability is its relation to Ben Affleck, and WP:NOTINHERIT. In the references, it is described as "a campy student project" and noted that Affleck "did a couple of short films". This is trivial coverage. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge (just a mention should be needed) to Ben Affleck. Due to the bizarre title and connection to Ben Affleck, some readers may want to know of the film's existence. But the film doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria of WP:NFILM, and IMDb doesn't even list a release date for it. (The film later became available on the Internet, but that must have happened long after the production was completed, because the film was made in 1993.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:56, 26 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) 12:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben's page - No nobility odd title likely makes it hard to find sources. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 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) 21:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears to scrape by on WP:GNG, not sure merge is really right. Artw (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Affleck filmography. Supporting the deletion of a Ben Affleck film goes against my instinct but it honestly doesn't meet the notability criteria as currently defined. All sources that mention it are primarily discussing Affleck, and while it features the "significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person" it is not "a major part of his/her career" per WP:NFO. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Affleck filmography; not independently notable, per review of available sources. An entry on a list is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this silly & bad short film per meeting inclusion criteria of WP:NF. We'd love to have even more, but I believe coverage by Entertainment Weekly SlashFilm,Film School Rejects, Hollywood Reporter, Cinemablend, AV Club, Paste, and E-Online are enough. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by MQSchmidt. The subject of substantial coverage by multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability, which is to say, "Passes GNG." Carrite (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Q. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I feel is this the better option. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:04, 17 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 Jadwiga of Poland #Pregnancy and death (1399). bd2412 T 13:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bonifacia[edit]

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

Lacks notability, trivial article about a person with no historical importance.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to abstain from voting having been the one to decline the speedy deletion tag. The notability of the person is definitely a bit shady, although not enough to warrant an undiscussed deletion. I'll put forth some of my findings here for others to judge:

Ref 1 from the article - translated and archived - Here, the wording of the section titled "What was the impact of the birth and death of Boniface and the death of the Queen on the situation of Jagiello?" and some of the content under it appears to point to relevance of the death of Elizabeth. Here the death of Elizabeth is given some importance as destabilizing her father's rule to an extent as he lost his only heir.
Secondly, the Elizabeth's horoscope has also had a couple of mentions: Here the horoscope is said to be drawn by a controversial astrologer of the time (which is arguably not a worthy mention) and here the horoscope is called the first "real horoscope" on Polish lands (again, the source is a blog so that weakens its credibility).

I got most of the information above from the sources themselves. There may be more, or perhaps not enough. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 21:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are quite a few sources on her. The event itself - the birth and subsequent death (of Elizabeth herself, as well as her mother) had ramifications on Polish succession. I'm more looking at this through the prism of an event than a person.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jadwiga of Poland #Pregnancy and death (1399). — Kpalion^(talk) 10:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Jadwiga of Poland #Pregnancy and death (1399). The death of the child and the regnant mother in rapid succession does appear to have given rise to something of a legitimacy crisis for the Polish crown for which there are a number of sources and which could be the subject of its own article (see also Jogaila_of_Lithuania#Early_actions) but merging this into the section on her mother would be another approach that provides useful context. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jadwiga of Poland#Pregnancy and death (1399). Not opposed to deletion. "Elizabeth died at exactly three weeks old" and WP:NOTINHERIT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (OSE, but...) - In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge we have several editors arguing notability for a fetus who is expected to be 5th in line for the throne at birth, rising to 3rd upon death of Queen and her grandfather - while that AFD may indeed close out as a delete, the child will definitely have an article as an infant (as Princess Charlotte of Cambridge did - actually while she was an embryo). Here we are discussing an infant who has significant coverage (for the period? Super abundant), and who had a significant impact on the succession of the Polish throne and was also involved in the veneration of the mother. We should try to aim for similar standards for historical and current figures - if at all the bar should be lower for an historic figure.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge as suggested. Normally, I would have said that a child who died aged 3 weeks was clearly NN. In this case, I can see an argument that her birth was significant. I am surprised that we can get such a long article on her, but we have. PLain deletion would certainly not be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article and available through a quick internet search would indicate notability, through her position as heir presumptive to the Polish crown. I would oppose merging because many aspects of this article are not applicable or too relevant to her mother's article (e.g. the prophecy, who she was named after), and because her mother's article is fairly long. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:24, 17 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo zhou[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. Article also requires significant cleanup, if indeed notable. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The particular "Akademia Music Award" has a bad reputation. You have to pay for your work to be considered. I've seen another case of no-coverage artist here at AfD having also won this prestigious award. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. — IVORK _Discuss 04:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, fails WP:NMUSIC.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both As per nominators.PRehse (talk) 20:15, 9 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 List of CSX Transportation lines . -- RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E&BV Subdivision[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:STATION, WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. My BEFORE search showed a bunch of fan sites plus mere mentions but nothing passing CORDEPTH. Spdfile1 refused to allow this to redirect to the article about CSX (the parent company) so I'm asking for deletion. This article was deleted before for similar reasons. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines which says almost as much about this line as the article does. A mass redirection of other minor CSX lines is also in order. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 25 August 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, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue AfD is not a todo list for AfD volunteers. As per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, content discussions belong on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hi User:Unscintillating, or others, can you explain more, please? It appears this is an issue about splitting out content to sub-articles or not, which is an editing decision. Is AFD the wrong forum to get consensus to proceed with merging them back in? Perhaps similarly, I have nominated 29 split-out NRHP articles for deletion, in ongoing AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert and Fay Havens House, where I am getting rocky reception about it so far. Perhaps the problem here and there is that an RFC is needed, different than an AFD? I would be grasping, though, to explain why that would be the case. --do ncr am 19:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from WP:Deletion policy, oldid=797578780:

===Editing and discussion===

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page...

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

"Editing" includes merging and redirecting, which also have sections at WP:Deletion policy. I'm not familiar with the merge forum (WP:PAM?), but AFAIK there is no central forum for changing an article to a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what is actually happening here, try to gain consensus on whether it should be Keep, Redirect or Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a todo list for AfD volunteers. I understand the sentiment. The counterargument is also valid: An article ends up at AfD after talk page discussion and tags have produced no results -- for years in many cases. The article survived a PROD, removed by an editor who added nothing to the page. AfD, with its time element, injects an element of urgency not available elsewhere. The editor who brings a page here feels she has exhausted all other options. The number of articles deleted here shows that it is an effective tool against unnecessary pages. Rhadow (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines; it's hard to imagine that a 40-mile stretch of railroad would be independently notable, and I don't believe this to be the case, per lack of sources. The entry on the list article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I'm not strongly opposed to the redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines. If the railroad wants to claim that a route is a different subdivision every 40 miles they're welcome to do so, but that doesn't make each subdivision notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:00, 17 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) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanicball[edit]

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

No sources, search for video game sources at WP:VG/RS finds none. Does not pass WP:GNG. PROD removed by author with no comment. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fan game. Fails WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reliable video game source search returns 0 results. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:00, 10 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Reed[edit]

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

This article has been written mainly by a single editor. The editor uses primary sources for all points. Roger Reed is an Oxford academic with no particularly significant contributions beyond that expected from a research professor. No secondary sources are used and "significant coverage" is not established in violation of WP:GNG.

Another Oxford professor Jonathan A Jones argued in the PROD process that h index of 44 ^[1] as per google scholar is sufficient for notability, to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:ACADEMICS, and so is the fellowship of the royal academy of engineering, criteria 3 of WP:ACADEMICS.

Both of these however are insufficient as per WP:ACADEMICS guidelines. h index of 44 in google scholar (38 in Web of Science ^[2]) is not exceptional. Further the guidelines state "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness." Also the guidelines state "elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient." It is unexceptional for an academic to be accorded fellowships in learned societies and fellowship in royal academy of engineering is far less selective than say the Royal Society and is relatively mundane. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_Reed for more detailed discussion regarding the guidelines.Johnnysmitha (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)— Johnnysmitha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ Google Scholar https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=IuIinzgAAAAJ&hl=en. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Web of Science author data".

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the entire deletion rationale unconvincing. A full professor at Oxford University with 14 publications that have been cited over 100 times each according to Google Scholar, with one cited 2056 times. Even in the modern sphere of academia, this is well beyond what I would expect from an academic with 'no particularly significant contributions'. As is a £187,895 grant from the Royal Society awarded to him as one of its Research Fellows ([3]). --Michig (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Totally implausible rationale for deletion by spa of one day's editing experience. GS shows that 8000 independent secondary sources have cited his work, so passes WP:Prof with flying colors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Question for nominator. Have you edited Wikipedia before under another account? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Given the mention of Jones, the involvement of Jones in editing this article, and the user name which closely resembles that of Jones, I strongly suspect Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled, a known sockpuppeteer who has a vendetta against Jones. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am also interested in an answer to Xxanthippe's question, but if this is a vendetta against me it's an extraordinarily subtle one. I only started editing this page in response to Johnnysmitha's prod, which came up at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford/Article alerts. The original article was indeed a bit of a vanity piece, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by a major trim. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, thanks. That's reassuring, even though it leaves the origin of this AfD a bit of a mystery. I'll strike my comment below. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both WP:PROF#C1 (already clearly demonstrated by Michig) and WP:PROF#C3 (FREng). ~~This seems likely to be a bad-faith nomination against Jonathan A Jones, a long-term Wikipedia editor who has made major contributions to this article.~~ —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of David Eppstein above, which are pretty much the arguments I used in my original deprod [4]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator provides the keep argument themselves; their argument that a very high h-index of 44 and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering does not meet the respective WP:PROF criteria is at odds with the consensus in hundreds of past AfDs. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 10 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) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan presidential election in Matara, 2015[edit]

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

This article provides no content that isn't provided in Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015 and can't be provided in Matara Electoral District. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with the nom - this information is available in other articles and serves no vale as separate standalone article. Dan arndt (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.It can be covered in Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015 and Matara Electoral District.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:36, 16 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 under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 05:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MRC for Medical and Equipment Trading[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also serious COI. We are considered as main supplier... Really? obviously written by the company its about. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; I requested a G11 -- let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 11 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. Hut 8.5 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bandbaja[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Not notable as a website. Greenbörg (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 17 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) 20:08, 24 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) 21:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No sustained coverage found, however it did once have some level of notability -- from The Herald Vol37 ?1-3? Page 262 "Back in December 2004, Bandbaja.org, an online music review website, generated a great deal of ink for providing musicians easy access to a popular forum for their music and videos. The website was adored and publicised in numerous print articles before vanishing...". It's not really a keep with what's visible, but a redirect and mention/capsule-listing somewhere (but where...?) might be reasonable. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- meh, a pretty transient web site; does not meet WP:NWEB. No suitable merge/redirect target and no SIGCOV, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Seems to fail on notability. Shaded0 (talk) 18:21, 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Marlow[edit]

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

Created as part of paid editing stint. Reads like a CV Carl Fredrik^talk 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatant self-promotion. Changed my vote: Mild keep or Merge with Breitbart News. Quis separabit? 23:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a notable figure (managing editor of Breitbart) and he has been covered and interviewed in major sources like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. See the major profile done on him by the New York Times this week: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/magazine/breitbart-alt-right-steve-bannon.html?mcubz=3 Avaya1 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being interviewed by major papers does not make one notable, notability comes from 3rd-party articles not interviews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times did a multi-page profile, it's not just an interview. It's profiling his life as well as Raheem Kassam. He also features in third-party news stories, such as when he was duped last month. http://nypost.com/2017/08/22/duped-breitbart-editors-reveal-dirty-work-planned-against-bannons-enemies/ Avaya1 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 02:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There looks to be sufficient sourcing to satisfy GNG/BIO. Being interviewed by major papers -- when the interview constitutes the article (in its entirety or a substantial part), i.e. it's not just a quick comment about another subject or an official statement from a spokesperson -- certainly contributes to notability. If you're selected for an interview by e.g. Forbes or the New York Times that's just about the definition of notability. There are separate things that come into play when using such a source in the article, but it contributes to notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, obviously notable. Whether the article was created as a promotional page is irrelevant. Just remove the promotional content and expand with RS (and he has been covered in RS, besides being editor-in-chief of one of the most notable news sources in the US right now). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:22, 11 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 (someplace such as) Fujairah#Geography. There's agreement here that this should be merged somewhere, but no clear consensus on what would be the right merge target. The suggestion to create a new article and merge all the similar mountain articles into it seems reasonable, but didn't see any discussion. So, I'll leave this as merge to somewhere, and let whoever does the actual merge figure out the details. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Jabsah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. De-prodded. DrStrauss talk 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is this a man-made hill? If not then why does GEOFEAT apply? - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: whoops, GEOLAND. DrStrauss talk 20:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge - according to WP:GEOLAND, the mountain could be notable if there is coverage of the feature other than basic statistics. I've searched English language sources, and can't find anything other than basic statistics and user-contributed data (e.g. peakery). However, I would be willing to bet that there will be coverage in offline sources, but I have no access to such information and we may not be lucky enough to have an Emirati geographer join this discussion. Given that there is a category for Mountains of the UAE, and at least some of the articles there are similarly minimal, could these be merged into the page on Geography of the UAE? If so, who would do that work? Hence: I conclude merge so that even the minimal information does not disappear before the merge happens. Ross-c (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 26 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) 08:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per User:Ross-c, probably to Fujairah#Geography. --do ncr am 03:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hmm, there is Category:Mountains of Fujairah consisting of 30-40 articles, at least several very similar one-sentence articles like this one. They may all be merged to one new Mountains of Fujairah (currently a redlink) article which will provide more value than each of them separately, because a table there would provide context for all of them, enabling comparison of their heights and locations and including a {{GeoGroup}} template so that all the coordinates can be seen in a linked Google or OSM map, etc. Apparently Fujairah is the one mountainous emirate in the United Emirates, so covering the mountains seems offhand like a good thing. Or, is there a Mountains of the UAE article? There are list-articles about mountains elsewhere such as List of mountain peaks of Mexico and List of mountains of Texas. --do ncr am 03:54, 16 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 12:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Tai[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an artist, which just states that he exists while failing to show any evidence that he would actually pass WP:CREATIVE for anything. As always, every person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he must actually be shown and sourced as satisfying a notability criterion for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has exhibited in wide range of countries, and his works have been acquired by art galleries in a number of countries. http://www.kunstgalleriet.dk/artists/hussein-tai He has been featured in books. http://www.nisroemer.dk/Hans_Blix_Glasses_book.php There is discussion of him having received an 'Erik Hoffmeyer Prize', but I've been unable to verify what this is. So, it seems that he is plausibly notable, and that the article needs a citation for verification/notability box, not to be deleted. Ross-c (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed in the history that the article had references at one time, until they were removed by Worldartistww, who appears to be acting on behalf of the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I restored an earlier version that had several good refs.104.163.140.99 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not familiar with this guy or his field, so I won't vote. However, I don't think that people need to 'earn' Wikipedia articles. The Notability criteria wasn't created for this purpose, right?Taraella (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people aren't automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist. A person has to pass a notability criterion, and have the reliable source coverage needed to support it, before a Wikipedia article becomes appropriate — if you can think of a better word than "earned" to express the distinction between "everybody who exists automatically gets an article" and "only people who meet certain specific conditions get articles", then feel free to substitute it in lieu of "earned" as you read and interpret my statement. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 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) 08:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I can't find any in-depth coverage. The coverage I see linked in the article seems in Dannish and does not seem like major news / scholarly reviews of his work, and seems like it could be written by him or based on a resume he submitted. As such, he seems to fail WP:NARTIST, through he could meet 4b - that's somewhat debatable. But IMHO that would require a discussion of significance of his work anyway. (Of course, on a final note, we don't demand this from sport bios, which can pass AfD with just a few statistics, so...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It looks more like a resume than an article on a noteworthy artist. Is Hussein Tai really notable? Maybe later he/she could be, but not right now.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, and no significant critical attention. None of the notability criteria in WP:ARTIST are met. Mduvekot (talk) 11:24, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Botanical Beach Hotel[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. sources just prove it exists. found no indepth sources. a few in gbooks are one line mentions that confirm an event was held there. LibStar (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 26 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) 12:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A single establishment in a chain of hotels is not notable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:31, 17 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, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VGN Radio[edit]

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

Non notable podcast that fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any significant coverage on the topic from reliable independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 05:43, 16 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. So Why 18:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gamertag Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast, fails WP:GNG from what I can see. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I tagged the article with the notability template last year when I was unable to find any reliable sources that provided significant coverage on the topic. That still seems to be the case. The link farm in article's references section don't actually support the topic's notability either. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would give a presumption of notability to a podcast with 700 episodes. However, I see no secondary references to support that presumption, so I abstain from any !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 17 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. Since the articles are identical, I'm counting the previous AFD's !votes here as well. So Why 18:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdy Johnson Band[edit]

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

Recreated by the same editor after deletion (first AfD here) and the article is pretty much identical. We have "references" of two blogs and one local newspaper. All albums self-released and none charting anywhere. This fails WP:MUSIC. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as it was a soft delete the editor did nothing wrong in recreating it. Outlaw Magazine seems to be a webzine rather than a blog but not at all sure if it is reliable so that leaves the newspaper article so more reliable sources are needed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:43, 9 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. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Mettey[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 19:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:ENT. I don't see any notable roles on her IMDb profile. From M*A*S*H: "Through the series, several actresses play characters named Nurse Able or Nurse Baker"; IMDb says she appeared in 6 episodes. On Quincy M.E. she appeared in 7 episodes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:10, 17 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Jack Haskins[edit]

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

This is merely a college player that never became a professional player. He does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Firstclass306 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with many articles of significant coverage found at nl.newsbank.com. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Haskins was a starting quarterback for two years (1995 and 1996) for a Power 5/SEC (i.e., top tier) team. He received abundant and significant coverage so as to satisfy WP:GNG. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep looks like he passes WP:GNG to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Even just a quick Google search reveals that he meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC by virtue of his time as a starting quarterback at both Kentucky and Rhode Island. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete college football player with no more than routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states, "at graduation [he] had passed for more yardage than any player in Kentucky high school history." Further, WP:GNG doesn't have a concept of "routine" being a restriction, nor should it, so routine coverage is evidence of notability. Unscintillating (talk) 20:58, 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) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feature articles like those shown are WP:NOTROUTINE and are far beyond the scope of box scores.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has received sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a high school athlete, and notable as a college athlete, too. Unscintillating (talk) 21:01, 10 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. So Why 18:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram Awan[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this autobio apparently written by the subject himself - see User:Awan2275. appeared in only one TV programme so far which doesn't qualify him to have an entry on WP. also, not much coverage in RS. --Saqib (talk) 08:49, 25 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) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite its WP:PEACOCKery, the article does not demonstrate the subject's encyclopaedic notability, whether as a hotel manager or as one of 3 judges on a TV show, in which respect the subject is already adequately covered at MasterChef_Pakistan#Judges_and_Presenters. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 9 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dyloot[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. I'm unable to locate any significant and reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — Za wl 07:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article from a local publication is a start but I could not find anything else in terms of coverage for this person. I'm not seeing enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 03:21, 26 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) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:12, 17 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 11:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arben Morina[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Being the recipient of a non-notable award does not guarantee notability of any kind, lacks coverage in independent RS. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been looking for sources on and off for a couple of days now and found nothing. There is no material for an article. Mduvekot (talk) 20:21, 21 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) 18:30, 25 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) 21:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There could be sources in Albanian, especially local news. Seems to have won several awards which are of importance in Albania. Though they lack international recognition, as does Albanian art in general. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete there's not enough here. I've found this interview and this gallery opening, but it isn't enough for WP:NARTIST. I don't think Albanian-language art press coverage can meet WP:GNG here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have not enough notability as the current article is and lack of sources reinforces. Agree with above comments that award refs seem non-notable. Shaded0 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It looks more like a resume than an article on a noteworthy artist. I am sure he has his accomplishments, but is he really notable? Maybe later he/she could be, but not right now.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:36, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sarfraz Hussain[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:GNG. no RS. Saqib (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 16 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Jones[edit]

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

Minor actress -- her most significant role has been as a taxi driver in Pulp Fiction -- and the article's ONLY references are two film reviews and an actor listing. Calton | Talk 17:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is misleading - Jones had the starring role (alongside William Baldwin) in Curdled (1996), a film for which many reviews exist. Pulp Fiction may have been her most high-profile film (in a role written for her by Tarantino), but her starring roles in Curdled, Family Secrets, and House at the End of the Drive, and significant roles in others, means she has a lot more going for her than just playing a taxi driver in one film. --Michig (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwash. I'd say your rebuttal is what actually counts as misleading. According to WP:NACTOR, an actor is "presumed notable" -- though not proven -- if he or she:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

For point 1, you've got a small role in Pulp Fiction -- and no reliable source for the "written for her by Tarantino" factoid -- and a film for which the best you can say that reviews for it exist, so fail. For points 2 and 3, not even close. --Calton | Talk 03:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of civility wouldn't hurt. Neither would going to Google and doing some searching rather than just looking at what's in the article. --Michig (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One look at her IMDb settles this pretty clearly. [[5]] Sethie (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to do better than "Because I said so." --Calton | Talk 03:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete a bunch of minor roles does not add to notability. IMDb is not a reliable source, so it proves nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has clearly had major roles, so also having minor roles has no bearing on notability. --Michig (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant number of roles and those include major films. More than adequate indicia of notability. Meets NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject's roles meet WP:NACTOR. I've added two references. gongshow talk 23:21, 16 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. Ignoring the obvious socking, unanimous consensus to delete as self-promotional. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Coffey[edit]

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

Non-notable promotional piece for an author and digital marketing executive. Nothing really outstanding here: none of the awards he has won qualify as prestigious under WP:ANYBIO, and the sourcing here is either promotional industry insider stuff or primary source articles he wrote himself. Borderline G11 piece, but I prefer to bring those here to get more eyes. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - Page has been moved to David Coffey.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the relevant AfD and changed all the links. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom, and referencing much that Wikipedia is not- WP:NOTCV, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTLINKEDIN, &co. Possibly at some point in the future, if lots more books and / or achievements which- fundamentally- other reliable sources reference themselves. — fortunavelut luna 18:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO; obviously written for promotion and would need to be completely written, if that were possible. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative to Delete His publications are notable including The Hill and American Bar Association. Keep page as edited in current version as self promotion was edited out by another editor yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.121.37.170 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative to Delete Agree. His publications are notable including The Hill and American Bar Association. I was the editor who edited out the self promotion the other day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instaslam84 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Instaslam84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Alternative to Delete There are other articles about Dave Coffey in the digital marketing industry from reliable sources including Adweek: http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/phd-added-communication-strategy-reason-success-79905/ and MediaPost: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/27846/cable-to-give-agencies-the-data-they-demand.html as well as Adage where he is a "news maker" with CNN http://adage.com/article/people-players/photo-review/62789/ He has also been featured on Michigan Technology News https://mitechnews.com/archive/iced-out-glima-state-of-the-net-set-for-march/ these should be included in future edits of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.209.36 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — 24.236.209.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per nom. The main claim of notability appears to be as an author of articles in various magazines, and I don't see this meeting either WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 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 Draftify. I'm also going to create a redirect to Osamu Tezuka. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Story manga[edit]

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

Neologisms, unsourced, and very likely full of original research. A search for of this term doesn't even bring up any mentions that predates this article, thus WP:CIRCULAR. —Farix (t | c) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I see there are references on the Japanese wiki article (I didn't check the Korean page) -- and those are readable by non-Japanese readers using Gtranslate... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research, already covered by the main manga article, including the Komawari sequencing of how to read the panels. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See below. 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep many references in books and academia which credit Tezuka as the originator of a form of manga (comics) which are more story-oriented and visual as opposed to newspaper strips and text-heavy American comics:
- Dreamland Japan: "the manga that I discuss in this book are almost all what are called 'story manga' in Japan. These are narrative manga... [The format] is what makes Japanese comics so different from those in other countries"
- Manga in America: "story manga tell a continous story over a large number of pages"
- Manga: An Anthology of Global and Cultural Perspectives: "Manga narratives are derived from Tezuka Osamu's innovative 'story manga'"
- Manga : 60 Years of Japanese Comics: "Osamu Tezuka ... originator of story manga"
- "The first Japanese Manga magazine in the United States": "Another factor that contributed to the popularity of manga in Japan was the development of 'story manga,' a serial of comic strip consisting of a dozen frames, in contrast to a one-frame manga."
- "Opening the Closed World of Shōjo Manga": "Tezuka pioneered the 'story manga' format by applying a so-called 'cinematic' method"
  Opencooper (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add those sources into the article? The way it is presented, it is still an essay and seems redundant to the main manga article, like it doesn't need to be split off from the main. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think based on the fact that it has references, but no one to integrate them into the body of the article, that it should be pushed into Draft, and this be redirected to Osamu Tezuka as one of his coined terms. The term is not present in either the Manga article or the History of Manga article, but since it's all about Tezuka's perspective, that would be the most helpful. However, even the Tezuka article does not say "story manga" either, so that would need to be tweaked. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate As described by AngusWOOF, it seems to be mostly related to Osamu Tezuka and outside of history concerning him it's almost never used. The Japanese Wiki article for the term also pretty much just talks about Tezuka. Could also be merged to his article. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate I don't see a reason for deletion if someone is willing to improve it up to standards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 14 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. utcursch | talk 14:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Haghighatnejad[edit]

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

No significant coverage in any available sources, only passing mentions, usually when he has been quoted. Fails WP:BASIC, ANYBIO, GNG, BLP. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 25 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) 17:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines under WP:JOURNALIST. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete im agree with PohranicniStraze Leodikap (talk) 15:10, 11 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. A number of sources have been proposed, but there's deep disagreement over the quality. We don't seem to have any meeting of the minds on what constitutes trivial vs. significant coverage, with rational arguments being made on both sides about specific sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ray Ramsey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only seems to be mentioned in passing in all the articles Carl Fredrik^talk 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The alt-right has caused a great deal of controversy and Paul Ramsey has played a role therein. Here are quotes from several sources:

"popular alt-right internet personality" (The New York Times -- link)

"prolific alt-right commentator and vlogger" (The Huffington Post -- link)

"a YouTube sensation" (Salon -- link)

"importante figure de l'alt-right" (French Version of VICE -- link)

There is no need for a biography in the mentioned source. Also I do think that reasons given in the last discussion -- where a clear majority proposed "keep" -- are valid. Sincerely, 93.224.97.95 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments are entirely unrelated to the rationale. Either provide sources, rewriting the article or don't waste time arguing this is important for some political fringe.

You still only cite the sources that mention him in passing. Carl Fredrik^talk 14:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you absolutely think that an article with numerous mentions is indispensable to substantiate relevance, look here:

Judy L. Thomas: Flush from victory, alt-right hits a rough patch, The Kansas City Star, or here:

Horváth Gábor: Magyaroknál lobbizik az önjelölt amerikai nagykövet , Népszava

but your rationale is flawed. It actually does matter what a source is saying. And don't waste time with an erroneous inference trying to diminish relevance using the phrase "political fringe".

93.224.110.175 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This proposed deletion reminds me of your flawed rationale and failed proposal to merge the articles "white supremacy" and "Identitarian movement".

I didn't know I had proposed that. Nice sleuthing. Anyhow, this still fails quite hard on WP:GNG per:

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Carl Fredrik^talk 19:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail on WP:GNG. The sources contain more than a "trivial mention".

93.224.110.175 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Flawed rationale again. Just for your enlightenment: it was not "sleuthing", I just remembered that nonsensical proposal which I had responded to (I wrote "reminds me", actually not that hard to understand), went to the corresponding article, clicked 500 views and let the browser look for "CFCF", a matter of seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.224.110.175 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete - a definite delete. Fails GNG and BIO. Only trivial coverage in all sources. The subject has not received significant attention in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. References and other sources consist of one line or two line mentions in articles of varying topics pertaining to the alt-right. Here is how the references do not support this subject for a stand alone article:

TPM - one line mention
Salon.com - one line mention
Mother Jones - one sentence mention (maybe two lines)
The Federalist - his name is mentioned once
New York Times - one sentence coverage in the whole article.
Media Matters - two lines and this source is probably not an independent reliable source - it is a blog supporting a personal point of view.

The last two references are the same. I am willing to critique them here if necessary. The sources posted at this AfD are of the same nature. Only passing mentions. There is not enough material in these sources to maintain an acceptable biography per Wikipedia standards. The lack of sourcing also indicates this subject fails WP:BLP. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I looked up the NYTimes citation you dismiss. While it is not a profile, and offers no in-depth coverage of Ramsay, it does say: "Paul Ray Ramsey, a Trump supporter and popular alt-right internet personality..." This is a RS describing Ramsay as popular, and, as such, offers some support for his notability. Together with the details on his life and work provided by the SPLC which enable us to source an article, descriptors like "popular" in RS publications validate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: the reason the Kansas City Star article [[6] fails as an acceptable source for this topic is because it is a bunch of quotes by the subject. This is trivial coverage. This is not coverage that significantly discusses this person. This is in contrast to Richard Spenser for most or all the sources posted here. He and his behavior are independently discussed ad infinitum. The Hungarian source [7] is also trivial coverage on its own because no other reliable sources cover this desire to be an ambassador - therefore verification fails. Also, this is coverage of only what Ramsey says, without any kind of critical eye lent to the writing. And a biography article on Wikipedia cannot depend on only one sketchy source (I also doubt it qualifies as WP:RS - no independent editing staff, fact checkers, and so on). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a matter of interpretation what is considered trivial. "Definite delete"? For a long period of time mentioned again and again in the media, more than 40 thousand subscribers and 13 million visits (for a far-right political channel!), and now this media turmoil concerning the alt-right, wherein he played his role, cf. e.g. American Renaissance-conference. Looking at the other discussion about whether to keep or delete one can see that the media coverage does not have to be interpreted as "trivial". It does of course depend on the picked comparison, e.g. comparing to David Duke would dwarf this coverage even more. 93.224.110.238 (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really a matter of interpretation. The appropriate guideline was quoted above per GNG:

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Also:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

Passing mentions are specifically noted in the guidelines, and the guidelines are summations of our core content policies. Furthermore, anyone quoted in a news article or in a TV interview is a primary source sharing information about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to. The same goes for YouTube videos, self-posted videos somewhere else, and so on, no matter how many subscribers and views (which can be achieved with bots, by the way). This material is non-independent and would contravene the neutral point of view policy, if it were deemed acceptable as verification for notability. It is clear on Wikipedia what is trivial and what is not, and what is independent coverage and what is not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To see the extent to which rules are a matter of interpretation, one has to only look at how they are applied in practice. 93.224.105.81 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a pretty clear GNG pass, for better or worse. Artw (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep if the SPLC thinks he needs a bio, we ought to have one too. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as has been twice shown in this discussion, this bio does not pass GNG, BIO {BASIC, ANYBIO), and so on. Passing mentions, and printing quotes, are the definition of trivial coverage. Also, asserting a false equivalence by saying the SPLC has a biography so we ought to have one, does not really work. Coverage is needed by multiple ~~other~~ sources according to BASIC, ANYBIO, and GNG, ~~and~~ because right now, the SPLC source is a one-off. We have notability criteria to fulfill and that is not based on one organization or one reliable source. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ray Ramsey participants and closer: Govindaharihari (talk · contribs), Animalparty (talk · contribs), AusLondonder (talk · contribs), E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs), David Tornheim (talk · contribs), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Kurykh (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largely for the reason I stated in the last AfD, coverage, WP:SIGCOV including this 2013 profile 2013 magazine article, brought by User:Animalparty to the recent AfD establisheds notability. Double-checking myself, however, I ran a quick search on his blog handle: RamZPaul, here: [8] and can see that non-trivial, RS that didn't come up under his full name; the first 2 hits are to The Atlantic, one of these mentions reads "Popular American far-right YouTube and Twitter personality RamZPaul, who has lived in the Hungarian capital off and on since 2013, tweeted in February to nearly 35,000 followers: “Budapest is like Paris of the 1920s. #Hungary.” Steve Quinn, Look, I may not like him, and up until, oh, say, ~two weeks ago I didn't take our U.S. right-wing fascist-wannabe's seriously. But since Charlottesville, I have doubled down on my opinion that we need to keep an eye on 'em. And RS coverage of Paul more than passes notability. This article needs expansion/improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely sourced to POV pushing articles intent of over-emphasizing the influence of people with ephemeral influence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as E.M. Gregory has shown there is only one source that significantly (and non-trivially) covers this topic, and that is the SPLC article. However, the other source targets a Google search results page. This essentially shows a list of articles. Each have one or two line passing mentions of RamZPaul the blogger (Paul Ray Ramsey's alter ego). This set of articles merely quotes his response to a number of events, and those events are the actual topics of each article. They do not cover RamZPaul the blogger in any non-trivial way. Once again fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, ISNOT, and so on. However, the effort is appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misstate what I wrote. I mentioned a couple of sources, there are also others that provide WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misstate what you wrote. One line mentions are trivial coverage. Also, quotes are primary sources, they are not independent coverage. There is nothing that I see that passes WP:SIGCOV. More than trivial coverage is needed in each source according to all the guidelines referenced in this AfD. One complete article on one website is not enough. The purpose of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is for verification. But it seems people forget this. And I have no more to say here. I am done with this AfD. Farewell, and good day to all. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Besides the SPLC source there are at least these three (just found the third one) sources were the subject is not only mentioned "in passing" ([9] The Kansas City Star, [10] Népszava, [11] The Raw Story). Of course one could always find some reason or angle to sort them out -- well, considering the Hungarian source the "verification fails"? Another one consists of quotations -- so what? It's not a mentioning in passing and adds relevance. Furthermore -- being mentioned again and again in passing -- one can easily find numerous instances -- does show his role after all.

Summa summarum -- as long as the subject's role in the alt-right is relevant enough, the aim should be to gather information for the Wikipedia-article and not kick out every source one by one for not being verifiable and explicitly biographical. 93.224.108.150 (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the SPLC profile is quite in depth: link. I believe that this plus other sources brought up at this AfD sufficiently establish notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There's no content here other than his political positions. There's no claim that he meets any specific notability guidelines. I don't feel that people can meet GNG solely by being obnoxious to reporters, as in [12]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:29, 17 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; !votes by new participants are discounted due to their unfamiliarity with Wikipedia standards for inclusion. bd2412 T 13:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Langella[edit]

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

Non notable, many sources don't resolve or are over-represented as articles when they are simply Instagram or blog posts CelenaSkaggs (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I went through each and every one of those links and all I can is that the sourcing is atrocious. The subject is not even mentioned by name in any of the legitimate, non-blog publications. WP:GNG, WP:BLOGS, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, at least. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mentioned by name by GQ http://gq.co.za/2016/05/6-stylish-men-follow-instagram/

Retain There are a lot of articles in non-blog publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.53.166 (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment 78.12.53.166's Comment is unfounded. Same IP removed the AfD from the page, and removed link to Italy-related discussion page. Furthermore, IP resolves to same location as the subject of the article. Likely conflict of interest; reinstated links - do not remove the AfD until the debate is complete! CelenaSkaggs (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain The subject is mentioned by name by GQ, I have a copy of GQ march issue with a full page of him. I see Vincenzo Langella also in many TV 151.41.120.224 (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please provide references. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mentioned by name by GQ http://gq.co.za/2016/05/6-stylish-men-follow-instagram/

Retain I think he is vivp very important virtual person. By now there are people that have virtual relevance. 91.252.25.24 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please provide references. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mentioned by name by GQ http://gq.co.za/2016/05/6-stylish-men-follow-instagram/

Delete as per RetiredDuke. I haven't gone through all the references, but the article is clearly promotional and describes no claims of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain There are a lot of reliable sources213.233.18.94 (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of enough RS to meet the WP:GNG or any relevant SNGs. The GQ source spammed by all the IPs here is only a passing mention and insufficient to prove notability. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:30, 17 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, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Reddy[edit]

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

This person doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:NBIO. The article provides no secondary sources and after a search, I couldn't find any coverage other than an article or so about his appointment as spokesperson of BJP. Therefore he can't be considered notable-at least not yet. Kostas20142 (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political party spokesman is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about the person to clear WP:GNG — but exactly zero of the references here are to reliable or notability-assisting sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat above. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable references.Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom but I do not understand Shashi 1980's comment as there are clearly at least 2 "verifiable" references even if they are not reliable. Domdeparis (talk) 09:28, 15 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. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metaverse Blockchain[edit]

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

Article is promotional in nature; as far as blockchains go this isn't a notable one. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:17, 26 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) 08:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 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) 11:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism for a nn blockchaim, which are a dime a dozen. Lacks SIGCOV. Nothing stands out about this one, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 14 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, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalle Oskari Mattila[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable writer lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. References are examples of his work. reddogsix (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator. No independent sources or peer reviews. Citations are from primary sources and fail to establish notability within his field. Darthamender (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added some new references to work and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samariterstrasse (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 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) 08:37, 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) 11:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- writers at this level of accomplishment are generally not considered notable, and there's nothing here that would suggest otherwise. If the subject publishes a full length book, then maybe. WP:TOOSOON for now, same as at the first AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the works cited are not considered notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I note that there is a page on Kalle Mattila on Finnish WP LINK. There, I did find THIS short biographical bit, but I don't think we are over the GNG bar at this point. Let's call this a NOTYET situation. Carrite (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'- Note also that this is a recreation of a piece that closed DELETE at AfD earlier this year, so SALT might be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 10:37, 14 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, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. F. Lewis[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR, language somewhat promotional and largely unsourced BLP. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete over the top promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:09, 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) 11:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. He has some coverage in the world of small press publication (blogs and private websites as well as print), and has himself been published extensively in small press and self-published format as well as some stories in anthologies from bigger publishers. But that is not sufficient: there's a lack of reviews or other critical commentary in reliable sources (which would include newspapers, magazines from major publishers, academic sources, independent websites with a proper editorial structure, etc), no evidence of major awards, and no indication of importance outside of a small, self-regarding world. Nemonymous should also be considered for deletion for its lack of coverage by independent third parties. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 11 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. But can be restored if the content is to be merged or reused as suggested here. Sandstein 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Investomer[edit]

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

A non-notable neologism. The current content isn't encyclopedic in nature either. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a certain important (minor sure) in Finance and Investment.If you are not familiar with these subjects (nothing personal mate) then you should probably not Afd it.

I would not delete the article and rather wait until it is improved.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 31 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) 08:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. While the article has a good bit of business jargon that could be simplified, the article itself seems referenced with multiple RS, showing the term exists. The idea of an investor also being a customer is of course popular and notable -- kickstarter campaigns, crowdfunding, etc. If it is just the title the nom has a problem with, renaming or a merge would be a better alternative then deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn neologism. I could not locate sources that would be sufficient for an encyclopedia entry Gbooks preview; this does not appear to be a concept that's been covered by sufficient sources. The article reads like WP:ADVOCACY of some sort. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 11 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} 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The K.G.B. (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There's some coverage out there (not in article though), but for me it doesn't quite meet WP:GNG and I see no signs of records charting or meeting WP:MUSICBIO another way. Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For me, the sources provided from the original AfD are unremarkable and do not pass the criteria for WP:GNG. WP:NMUSIC has not be met either since none of their albums achieved a notable award or chart listing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely. Billboard article (up and coming) [13]. Full length review - Campbell, Chuck (12 October 2001). "Garbage takes a trashy turn". The Knoxville News-Sentinel.. Very short review - Harrison, Shane (4 November 2001). "Feed Your Machines: audiophile". The Atlanta Journal - Constitution.. review by "a freshman at Dundee Crown High School." (not a pro reviewer) - Thorne, Evan (21 December 2001). "Bionic Jive's debut album shows off its rock-rap potential". Chicago Daily Herald.. Broad enough to be not just local. Sources provided are not unremarkable and do pass the criteria for GNG. WP:MUSIC is met as they satisfy the first criteria. Not meeting two others does not negate the first. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:BAND. Billboard is probably not sufficient for notability. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources offered above are trivial and passing mentions or from sources that are not sufficient for notability. Fail WP:BAND & WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 17 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 Alex Shih, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudmark[edit]

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

Article is mostly promotional in content and appears to contain little if any encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the article can be bettered, yet it is part of an encyclopedic view of the email landscape. Cloudmark has hundreds of employees who made significant contributions (for example, authoring RFC 6376). It certainly deserves a Wikipedia page. ale (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the deletion policy this seems to fall under reasons number 1, 4, 8 for deletion. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Content is 100% promotional, as in:

"Long a foe of spammers, in 2015, the company helped the FTC stop an affiliate spam company promoting diet pills!"

Etc. etc. No encyclopedically relevant prose and no indications of notability or significance. Article cited to self-sourced materials and passing mentions. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 14 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 Mušutište. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mass abduction in the village Musutiste[edit]

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

POV concerns. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind telling us what your POV concerns are? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better for this to be covered in a broader article that provides proper context: maybe War crimes in the Kosovo War? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mušutište. Assuming that the event happened, the first place to expect to find it would be in the article on the article on the village. This is only a short article, so that there is not need for a separate one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the village as suggested above. I was not able to find sufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article, although the destruction of the church suggests that an associated war crime is likely to have taken place. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 15 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigrant population of the United States[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because there isn't enough content here to justify a separate page from 'Illegal immigration to the United States'. In fact, the presence of both this page and a section in the 'Illegal immigration to the United States' on the same topic may have contributed to the underdevelopment of both, as editors have either added content to one or the other page. The content that's worth saving from 'Illegal immigrant population of the United States' should be added to the 'Profile and demographics' section of 'Illegal immigration to the United States'. Deleting this page will strengthen the 'Illegal immigration to the United States' page, and ensure that Wikipedia will cover the demographics of the illegal immigrant population of the US in a more comprehensive fashion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a sub-page springing from Illegal immigration to the United States, constructed to keep the parent page from becoming so large as to be unwieldy. It is not a POV fork and is a subject of fairly massive study, both academically and in the contemporary press, and thus miles above the GNG standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPLIT - the main page is 181k, and this would make it 195k in size. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:29, 9 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because there isn't enough content here to justify a separate page from 'Illegal immigration to the United States'. In fact, the presence of both this page and a section on the economic impact in 'Illegal immigration to the United States' may contribute to the underdevelopment of both, as editors either add content to one or the other page. The content that's worth saving from this page should be added to the appropriate section of 'Illegal immigration to the United States'. Deleting this page will strengthen the 'Illegal immigration to the United States' page, and ensure that Wikipedia will cover the topic in a more comprehensive fashion. Another important reason why this page should be deleted is that the content on this page is substandard. An editor recently tried to introduce large parts of this article to the 'Illegal immigration to the United States', but upon close inspection of the material in question, it was found to be wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Multiple_problems_with_recent_edits_.2831_August_2017.29. I suspect that there are similar problems with the remaining content in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be kept. It's challenging to write because people that don't like the opposing side of the argument tend to delete material. It merits a separate entry from illegal immigration in the U.S.Farcaster (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article is clearly bias from the start. "Unauthorized immigrants demand goods and services (thus creating jobs) while contributing payroll and income taxes". Does the government get more money in taxes than it pays to support them? It then says "They also lower prices in the industries where they provide labor, such as agriculture, restaurants, and construction", which means they have no choice but to work for cheaper prices than anyone else would. They lower salaries available for those jobs. No mention of how many unemployed Americans would be willing to do those jobs if they hadn't stolen it from them. Merging this to the other article would mean more people to watch it, and perhaps keep people from constantly removing anything that supports the opposite of what they do. Dream Focus 14:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a fork of Illegal immigration to the United States but is rather a fairly well done sub-article springing as a "Main Article" on a topic from that page to keep the parent article from becoming so large as to be unwieldy. Obviously a topic with massive sourcing available and therefore miles above the GNG inclusion standard. Pretty easy call here if one takes a look at the parent article and then this. Complaints about "bias" are an editing matter, not a notability matter. NOT a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:Split - With the other page on deletion, it would be around 232k in size, way above the size needed to be split out in different parts. This page itself is 37k. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:33, 9 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. Keep as is or merge, there is clearly no consensus to delete. Merge can be discussed elsewhere So Why 18:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tube well[edit]

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

Tube well is a regional synonym for Water wells, which content this article duplicates (but not as completely). Article since 2014 has had only one reference (and so tagged). PROD was removed without improvement. A REDIRECT would recognize the regional use of the term Tube well, while the technology is the same worldwide. Notability is not measured by wikilinks, but by reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadow (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I don't understand why deletion processes are being used, rather than {{mergeto}} and a merge discussion on the talk page. The nominator's comment about wikilinks apparently refers to my rationale for de-PRODding the page; https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1426365 has 10 other wikipedia articles on tube wells, but now that I have looked at them, only the Punjabi one has additional citations (4 of them), and the Punjabi article linked to Water well is only one paragraph, which indicates that there may not be enough to justify two separate articles (in any language). – Fayenatic London 20:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tube wells are a distinctive type of well and notable by that name. As this technology is commonly used for irrigation and human consumption and there are ample sources, there is no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching on Google Scholar, I see over 23k matches for "tube-well". There are ten interwiki links to this article in other languages, most of these also have a separate article for water well. +mt 21:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion besides being a different term, please tell me how a tube well differs from a Water well#drilled well usually cased with a factory-made pipe, typically steel (in air rotary or cable tool drilling) or plastic/PVC (in mud rotary wells, also present in wells drilled into solid rock). Rhadow (talk) 23:05, 10 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, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Martin (musician)[edit]

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

Was PRODed, but was ineligible as the page has been deleted via that process previously. I am unable to find substantive coverage in sources independent of the topic. It is probable that the creator had a COI. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of satisfying WP:MUSIC. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 16 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) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changphueak Chiangmai F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable club. No reliable sources about the club. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below. Giant Snowman 14:09, 13 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) 11:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition based on the sources provided below. @GiantSnowman: do you want to reconsider? Fenix down (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & merge to JL Chiangmai United F.C., which is the club's new and current name. Appears to meet the GNG, having received dedicated coverage in the national press.[14][15][16] --Paul_012 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: could you translate the relevant sections, please? Happy to accept they have coverage but I have no understanding of Thai. Fenix down (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of those articles are discussing the subject. I don't really have the will to translate them all, but the first item, dated 5 February 2017, covers the announcement of the club's new name, with reporting on the ceremony, the club's ownership, management and sponsorship, history and previous performance, and its upcoming participation in the Thai League 4. The second item, from 6 January, provides similar background coverage. The third item, from 3 August, is about the club's 2017 performance, being the only team from the fourth tier to make it into the national FA Cup. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so the third source confirms they have played in the National Cup? That would make then notable by current consensus. Is there a match report confirming they have played? Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake above. Should have said they made it into the round of 16 of the FA Cup. Here's the official summary for their first-round match.[17] --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have adjusted my comments accordingly. Fenix down (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & merge per Paul_012. Participate in 2017 Thai FA Cup and already made it to final 16. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:50, 16 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, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macron sponsorships[edit]

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

No need for a separate list. Delete and move the sponsorship on the main page Macron (sportswear). Greenbörg (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Macron article Spiderone 10:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wish to change to delete due to the article essentially being quite indiscriminate (Macron probably sponsor a lot of small and non-notable teams) and failing WP:LISTN Spiderone 17:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to the main article if a suitable citation or source can be found to back up these facts. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unmanageable list, would grow to huge lengths given enough time. Fenix down (talk) 11:12, 12 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional representation in presidential systems[edit]

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

Orphan article and unsourced, for almost 10 years, it has always been a stub and seems to be written from a POV perspective. B.Lameira (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on proportional representation.Vorbee (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete --proportional representation. U.S. readers learn most when congressional elections are compared with other countries. Proportional representation is not relevant to a U.S. presidential election anyway. A parliamentary system, yes (result of original [bad] research). Rhadow (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Merge and delete for an explanation of why that is a bad idea. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced essay; don't see the need for this article. Number 5 7 17:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 08:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an un-referenced, main-space orphan, and generally unnecessary sub-page of Proportional representation. I don't see any content worth merging. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is all unsourced WP:OR. I'm all for WP:ATD, but in this case, there's nothing here worth merging, so just delete it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:11, 17 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 The_Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests. There appears to be consensus that there is insufficient notability for a standalone article about Weinstein. However, since he was involved in an event that received national media attention, "Bret Weinstein" is a likely search term and the reader should be directed to the content they are seeking. Since Weinstein is mentioned by name at The Evergreen State College, that is the appropriate target for the redirect. If anyone feels there is content still to be merged into the target article, the content will remain available in the page history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Weinstein[edit]

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

Only notable for one event. (Evergreen State College). See WP:BLP1E. At best, this should be a redirect. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge/redirect. WP:BLP1E. WP:Prof not passed yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There's more in depth coverage of the event and its aftermath, such that 1E does not apply: [18], [19], [20]. Weinstein is also the author of various scholarly articles: [21], [22], etc., along with various "thanks to" in other papers from peers and students, his dissertation, a patent application, and then there's this, a forthcoming academic commentary on the incident, to which I do not appear to have free access. Overall, the continuing coverage afterwards, combined with his previous RS publications, render this far outside the WP:BLP1E realm. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Also while he doesn't meet WP:PROF, he does have significant coverage, enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Policypolicy (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- He has been a prof for at least a decade, and he has fewer publications than most biologists get during their PhD... He clearly does not meet WP:PROF and that level of scholarly output is nowhere near grounds for inclusion. He is relevant only in the context of Evergreen State. Hence BLP1E. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you arguing against WP:PROF, nobody argued he fits the requirements for WP:PROF, WP:BLP1E requires 3 conditions. A seperate article can be made if the event was significant and the individuals role was significant. The event was both significant and centered around Bret Weinstein, which is why I argue to keep the page. Policypolicy (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relevant content to The_Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests and Redirect. The events at Evergreen are ongoing, as is all the drama surrounding Professor Weinstein, which could potentially steer in a direction not directly related to the one event that brought him into the spotlight. So the {{R with possibilities}} tag should definitely stay. But as it stands I have to agree he doesn't meet WP:PROF. -- œ^™ 06:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has suggested he meets WP:PROF. The GNG, on the other hand, is clearly met. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. All notability is concentrated around a single sequence of events, the 2017 protests and their aftermath. The article on the protests is a better place to cover this, since we have nothing interesting to say about his biography or scholarly work. The news stories about him mention a fraternity-whistleblowing incident when he was a college student but that's not enough to save this from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect The person is not notable, the person's involvement in a single event is. Redirect and cover the person's involvement there. TheValeyard (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article is clearly a NPOV violation, written with an attempt to downplay the racism inherent in the attacks on Weinstein. It is clearly written to falsely convey mob demands as "invitations".John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not news. The events around Weinstein's standing up to racist attempts to exclude people for a day from a campus based on their race is a news story. The whole incident of mob violence at Evergreen College might be worth an article, but it in no way makes Weinstein notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Weinstein is known exclusively in connection with a news story and is otherwise a low-profile individual. AusLondonder (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO (unsurprising, notable biologists rarely teach at minor "non-traditional" colleges; they need labs). No redirect necessary; the sole even for which he is notable is already covered at The Evergreen State College#2017 protests. The incident/protests/lawsuit may become notable enough to be a stand-alone article, as someone said above. Time will tell. But Weinstein lacks notability apart from BLP1E. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion discussions are not polls, add a choice if it adds a new point, or reply.Policypolicy (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 08:03, 9 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. So Why 18:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AKD Group[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage about this group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a major business group with several subsidiaries [23] [24] Mar4d (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability is not inherited. We don't have article because it has notable products. For your knowledge, we have a article AKD Securities which is notable. Greenbörg (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough to have made headlines but for the wrong reasons. See: Geo News & The News - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfarazbaig: Don't you think it is AKD Securities which I think is notable. Greenbörg (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenbörg: It doesn't matter what you or I think. The headlines clearly read: AKD Group. And Reuters calls it, "one of Pakistan’s largest domestic conglomerates". - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check this by DAWN. This will clear much. Greenbörg (talk) 14:51, 9 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 (WP:CSD#G4). The very same article content was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HolidayMe where consensus was that the company is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holidayme.com[edit]

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable online travel agency. Does no meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Significant RS coverage cannot be found; what comes up is trivial mentions and self-promotion; sample: link. Previously deleted via AfD as HolidayMe:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HolidayMe.

Has been recreated twice, once as HolidayMe (speedy deleted) and now in this current version. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this self promotion? The articles have been published by 3rd parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkshots (talk • contribs) 07:30, 10 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. G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Escapement/Archive Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pokeys Night Club[edit]

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

For some reason tagged for A7 speedy and then untagged again by the same ~~editor who is not an official~~ reviewer. I can't see how it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll repost my proposed deletion rationale here. Passing mention in [25], but cannot find any sources that verify the indication of importance nor significance (with one exception of this source, but even this first person account only refer the subject as being "famous", and that alone cannot possibly establish notability. Alex Shih ^Talk 19:41, 10 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daggafari[edit]

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

This article was started and largely edited by the creator of the neologism "Daggafari". Redirection to Cannabis in South Africa, the suitable main article for this topic, was declined. As it stands, it's a clear WP:CFORK. No reliable sources have been given which discuss the neologism in detail. Slashme (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article focuses on the evolution of the contemporary cannabis (daggafari) culture of South Africa in relation to the history of cannabis laws and racism in South Africa. (See WP:SUBPOV--11:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)) Renaming the article to Cannabis culture would not suffice because this is not a general article about global cannabis culture but the unique history of specific to the South African cannabis culture. Although some aspects of the Daggafari article can be found in Cannabis in South Africa it is not in violation of the content fork guidelines. Just how the hippie or beatnik culture is not in violation of the content fork guidelines. (see WP:RELAR & WP:RELART--11:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)) Further more, the notability of the terms has since been lodged on the talk page. Although the term is relatively new, it is a label that has been accepted & used by the dagga culture of South Africa in general as well as prominent figures in the South African cannabis culture such as the Dagga Couple and the Dagga Party of South Africa. The stigma surrounding dagga is still very much alive in South Africa and mainstream media prefer to use sensational word to describe the culture by using words like pothead etc thus it has not been covered by mainstream media. This shouldn't however be the only merit to determine notability. Furthermore the Afrikaans Language Commission is currently discussing to include the Afrikaans words for Daggafarian in the list of Afrikaans words. I do not believe the article should be deleted even if the consensus should be reached that the term is not notable as the article does not focus solely on the term but the subject or culture that the term refers to. I believe the nominator was wrong to delete the contents of this article and create a redirect to a poorly structured piece that itself needs a lot of work to present less of a list and more of an article. I don't think "reliable" sources can be found in a country that still revels in the stigma and pseudo-science of the subject, eg. where the reliable sources in the country publishes mostly unreliable pseudo-scientific and stigma pieces on the subject. This term is mostly used by the South African cannabis culture and is preferred over being called a pothead. Please consider the entire article and do not base your decisions solely on the word. Again the article can be adapted and should not be deleted as it contains critical info not contain in other articles and deals with a focused subject that does not appear in other articles. COI has been noted on the af:Daggafarianisme article and it is what transformed it into its current shaped as I started learning more about Wikipedia guidelines. I am a fairly new user but am able to think for myself and apply myself neutrally to the subject. Other than the contesting of the title and main introduction this nomination carries no substance and should not result into a delete. Thus it appears the nominators reasoning is not based on Wikipedia guidelines but need for the removal of the implication of racist cannabis-Apartheid history of the subject. If you are able to follow the nomination for deletion of the Afrikaans version this will be echoed in the sentiments where notability was not contested by the majority. (Mostly only the historic content relating to cannabis laws and racism was contested, also see the relating talk page EDITED --10:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Where the nomination was raised by a suspected sockpuppet!--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 10:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern is that the Cannabis in South Africa is poorly structured and doesn't cover the topic, that's a good reason to work on that article and include this topic there instead of just creating a fork. It's short enough that there's room to discuss this topic in a few paragraphs.

The comments about the Afrikaans wikipedia are not very relevant here. Who nominated that article for deletion, or how many of the !votes over there mention notability are not issues that affect this discussion. --Slashme (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not quite sure if the content fork applies, but at the very least, this is WP:TOOSOON. A Google search (and yes, I realize that's not everything) for "daggafarian" returns less than 600 hits. This article very much feels like a WP:SOAPBOX in order to promote/market a movement. There doesn't seem to be any actual reliable coverage of the term. But even with that, it's hard to see that it's worthy of a separate article rather than a simple mention at Cannabis in South Africa as a local term for a user. Moreover, the article as written is blatantly POV, which is itself fixable, but I think it does show the promotional aspect of it. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cannabis in South Africa per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As per my notice on my talk page, will never again engage in discussion or debates with fellow wikipedians and will no longer contribute to wikipedia. However I have an obligation to defend my actions because they have been in good faith and there is some notability to the subject. However as pointed out in my notice there is no clear threshold for notability. I find it impossible to believe that after years of service, real world examples of thresholds for notability have not been established and used as evidence for and against notability. There is a consensus that Facebook sources are NEVER permissible but those that believe this must please study the Facebook guidelines. There are exceptions.
- Fields of Green for All representative Joanne Parry using the term in an social media fundraiser campaign for the NPO: "All the proceeds raised go towards our #FairCop court challenge, where we aim to stop the police from harassing and arresting all daggafarians."[26]
- ^ The campaign post was reposted in full by the Dagga Party of South Africa just one of the many times that a reliable and independent prominent dagga organization or figure used this term.public link working, tested working even when logged out
- The term may well be a decade old. It was used well before the declaration--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 00:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're unwilling to engage in discussion, I'd say that disqualifies any comments you make, as discussion is really how Wikipedia works. I'll note though, that the first link you posted is to a closed Facebook group, and is thus not useful as a source. The second link is a 404, which is also useless. And the third link is to something that you, yourself, seem to have written; that's also not a reliable source.

It's quite true that there's a wide grey area in terms of notability, but as things stand, this isn't anywhere near that zone. You haven't offered anything that this is anything but a neologism (as pointed out above) which you're trying to promote by an article on Wikipedia. If (and I stress the if part) you can find the term discussed in reliable, secondary sources, I don't see any reason why this can't be a brief mention at Cannabis in South Africa, again as pointed out above. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
- Below The Lion Editor, William Wallace, responds in comment on a article written about him where he refers to the dagga culture as daggafarians.[27]--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 00:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A person associating themselves with the dagga culture referencing the [28], term, public link accessible without loggin in, and another person, tested working without login in and a social media page I have no affiliation with also using the term, tested available without login in--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 00:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another person I don't know using the term on more than one occasion. [29],[30] links tested working no sign-in required. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 00:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another social media page referencing the term — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyDangerez (talk • contribs) 01:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All but the last link are still 404s. And the last link is a pretty obvious hoax post. And even still, none of that is relevant for demonstrating notability. The simple fact that a few people use a word does not mean the topic is notable. Moreover, this is getting into WP:OR territory in trying to trace usage through primary sources. Once again, what you really need are reliable, secondary sources that discuss the term itself. And even then, there's still the issue of why this term should have its own article rather than a mention at Cannabis in South Africa. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Deacon Vorbis and also my comment here. The contents of this "article" have nothing to do with the articles name, it is not notable enough to be a stand-alone article and barely enough usable content to merge with Cannabis in South Africa. Rob van vee 05:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the historical content & external references is to be deleted without first being merged to the suggested page in the event that the motion to delete is successful. Also there is enough references and content about Daggafari to make a merge possible, laziness isn't an excuse. In response to 404s it is related to your geography maybe eg. censored china. I have tested the links while being signed out of Facebook and they are working. Which satisfies Facebook reference guidelines referring to content not available due to login, no login is required. Rob I believe your intentions here are not unbiased as you are heavily associated with the Dagga Couple & FOFGA and your comment comes just after my publication made its intention clear to investigate your organization. Even though I have already asked you days prior on the talk page you mention, to file your motion, it cannot be coincidental for the delay. Therefor you have a conflict of interest, not in the subject but, by your influence & association. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely not in China (I'm in the US), and those links are definitely no good (FB reports, "The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed." whether or not I'm logged in). None of that really matters, because as has already been noted many times, someone merely using the term doesn't establish notability. Also, demands like "None of the historical content & external references is to be deleted without first being merged to the suggested page in the event that the motion to delete is successful." carry no weight. I would suggest saving whatever information you want in case the article does get deleted. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend that the closing admin rather choose the milder remedy of redirection, in which case the full article history would be available. There's always WP:REFUND if the page gets deleted, though. --Slashme (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic rant

DICTATORSHIP ^ no intention of merging content, those in favour just want the racist history of whites regarding dagga removed and has really nothing to do with notability of a term anymore.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you're feeling frustrated, but one of the reasons that we prefer to merge articles instead of keeping multiple articles on the same topic is because our articles get better balance and completeness when more people are working on the same article and looking at the topic from different points of view. The Cannabis in ZA article will be improved if you can add the perspective of the current dagga politics, but we are seeing a clear consensus that "daggafari" as a term is not notable enough to warrant its own separate article. This isn't dictatorship. It's democratic consensus-building. --Slashme (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever helps you sleep at night bro. No matter the outcome of this nominations, it will one day feature on Wikipedia even if consensus of notability is not reached now.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: in protest against the dictatorship of cherry picking segments of Wikipedia guidelines to fit POV. I cannot be part of any organization that allow it. I would like some clear examples to demonstrate notability, it doesn't exist for the very reason to bend policies to favor certain views. I believe I have proven notability and the sources are reliable in terms of the guidelines to the type of sources and in the context they have been used. COI doesn't influence notability nor does it influence sources where a clear violation cannot be shown.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 due to article creator User:MickeyDangerez's request for deletion. Admittedly, it doesn't sound as though Mickey actually supports the deletion of this article, so as a second choice delete. The article has not adequately distinguished the topic from Cannabis in South Africa, and the arguments advanced here in favor of the article are hard for me to understand. They seem to be focused more on the merits of "daggafari" as a word as opposed to its being a topic separate from Cannabis in South Africa. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this. No use in protesting in frustration. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: content merged in Cannabis in South Africa, the article Daggafari can now be redirected or deleted.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you haven't so much "merged" the content as "cut and pasted" it, but it's definitely something that the community can work through. Let's continue the discussion of the due weight to give the topic and the tone of the writing at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa. --Slashme (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was understanding that a merge would involve copy / paste, but because of "COI" on the subject of cannabis am not sure which content must change or be removed and thus did not account for those changes. I just wanted to speed up the process as you intended with redirect. thank you. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:13, 17 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 and redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). So Why 18:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Luz[edit]

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

George Luz was an NCO with E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. Neither his rank (Technician Fourth Grade) nor his highest award (Bronze Star) make him notable under WP:SOLDIER. After the war, Luz led a quiet, non-notable life. Post-war writings about him are largely anecdotal. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect name, as has been done with the rest. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for soldiers. Being portrayed in film or television is not on its own a sign of notability. For example, we do not have articles on most of the people portrayed in Hacksaw Ridge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) as per Hawkeye7. Mr. Luz has a fair number of mentions in press articles (for instance http://www.eadt.co.uk/what-s-on/unmissable-why-i-m-always-pleased-to-reunite-with-my-band-of-brothers-1-4225055) but nothing I found was more than a passing mention. They don't reach, separately or in sum, what's expected by way of WP:SECONDARY sources. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found. Notability is not inherited from the notable unit or the miniseries. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 15 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. The article may be decrepit, but it's not abandoned. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned vehicle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Dictionary definition dressed up with what will be (when expanded) the most tiresome WP:NOTHOWTO compilation of local regulations on earth. E Eng 01:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge salvageable content with and redirect to Decrepit car An abandoned car is often a decrepit car and there should be a few mentions of that in the latter article, though without the confusing statements like the Texas line, which could easily call a car in a park-and-ride abandoned when it often isn't so by any means. Nate • (chatter) 04:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Decrepit car is a ridiculous concept for an article as well. It too is a random pile of miscellany. E Eng 04:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the esteemed contenders in the round: I surely hope that no-one will deny the existence of either unused cars or their abandonment. I definitely mean to add statistics to make the point more evident. Besides, could you have pulled the criteria for abandonment out of your sleeve? I couldn't. Would you have guessed that the criteria differ so much? Not me. Even knowing the variety of dos and don'ts that exists is valuable. Afterthought: there is nothing from my point of view that contradicts pulling the information about unused and unrecycled! cars together into one article. Mere denial of the fact is not an option. Just as with all other waste. -- Kku (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:TNT Most local authorities have teams which will find and tow away such vehicles, normally with a reporting system, ~~perhaps~~ a rewrite is ~~in order~~ 100% necessary, but the topic is relevant. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS. Any sources treating this in an encyclopedic manner? E Eng 14:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after checking it seems Halsbury's has several sections on it. it even in one part says more or less the above: "Where it appears to a local authority[1] that a motor vehicle[2] in its area is abandoned without lawful authority on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway, it is the duty of the authority to remove the vehicle[3]." A Guy into Books (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a law on it" is not encyclopedic coverage. E Eng 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halsbury's is an encyclopedia (encyclopedia of law). But thats not my point, my point is that this topic goes beyond WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:DICTDEF, as there is enough information to merit a thorough examination of the topic in reliable secondary source(s). therefore by extension this article ought to be kept and improved. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just occured to me that you might have thought of Halsbury's Statutes rather than Halsbury's Laws of England which is the work I was (rather ambiguously) referring to. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still appears to be just a digest of legal provisions. How in the world is Where it appears to a local authority[1] that a motor vehicle[2] in its area is abandoned without lawful authority on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway, it is the duty of the authority to remove the vehicle anything like something that should be in an article? At the very least, this should be merged with Decrepit car as suggested above. Beyond that, I give up. This is just too silly to argue about. E Eng 22:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legal term of art that many of our core readers will be looking for when they search the Internet. It is perfectly fine as a start; it is well-referenced albeit incomplete. A decrepit vehicle is not the same thing. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted by @Jo-Jo Eumerus: at Afd a mere eight months ago. Is there a reason why this wasn't brought t speedy deletion per WP:G4? ~~speedy delete on that basis -- unless someone can tell us if this is manifestly better or different than the last version. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

The reason was is that I didn't know. I wish I had. Is it too late? E Eng 15:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it can be hard for us to tell. Always a good idea to check the talk page or pages linked to for a sign of a previous Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section is exactly the same, but the version I deleted has nothing but the lead section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jo-Jo. Striking through my !vote above. Current article should be judged on its own merits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can people please stop saying to merge this with Decrepit car, if a millionaire parked a £100,000 ferrari in my local street and left it there for 4 weeks after the tax ran out then it would be an abandoned car, but hardly a decrepit car. the two topics are completely separate. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm now envisioning an article that surveys long-term overtime parking regulations worldwide? E Eng 22:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not far off, this kind of remedy is normally only used where a car wouldn't be towed due to parking violations, as that would happen before the council tow it away due to abandonment. It needn't be complex, a simple overview of the law and process of some main countries would be fine. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, a mass of WP:OR with some WP:SYNTH thrown in. E Eng 22:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely.
I could make perfectly OK stub out of this, but it would only cover England and Wales, since my Westlaw subscription doesn't cover anywhere else. A Guy into Books (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QED. E Eng 23:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is anyone seriously suggesting that the situation described here isn't both widespread, and described at length in a variety of local bylaws? Some historical and international survey of this seems encyclopedically relevant to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what will be the sources for the historical and international survey, other than the OR and SYNTH already offered?

Newspapers would work for the UK. The Bristol local paper, esp. late '90s, took rather an interest with vehicles abandoned in one park location. The national press has been supportive in recent years for the government's "we're crushing anything found untaxed" campaigns. Why do you claim there are no sources? Do you have anything to prove such a negative? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something changed while I wasn't looking, but usually at AfD it's the positive that needs proving. Whatcha got beyond the Bristol local paper's interest with vehicles abandoned in one park location? E Eng 01:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast, Bristol and Oxford (Blackbird Leys) would be good places to start from for a 1990s context, when TWOCing became a particular problem in the UK, leading to large numbers of abandoned vehicles (to the point when councils had to act) and car security needed to be improved. Years following that, and the technical ability to give pedestrian traffic wardens wireless computer access, led to the clamp-down [sic] on untaxed vehicles. Both of these are solid events to hang article narrative on. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Every major municipality has had to deal with this issue allocating major recourses to it and every one has in-depth coverage to this issue. OR? Just do a current news search of "Abandoned vehicles" and you'll see.[31]. Further evidence of passing WP:GNG are the Minnesota Legislature created a very extensive in-depth report on the topic of abandoned vehicles.[32] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published very in-depth analysis of abandoned vehicles in this book. There are many more in-depth reports on abandoned vehicles and the impact they have I could list here. I'm surprised anyone thought this wasn't an encyclopedic topic. --Oakshade (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is pretty awful, and to some extent incorrect (many abandoned vehicles are perfectly sound but have been dumped after being stolen for example) but there is a notable topic here. --Michig (talk) 10:20, 16 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. Michig (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beauty School in Kentucky[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 04:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Indubitably a textbook directory. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This one is a blatant directory. WP:YELLOWPAGES RetiredDuke (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Per WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Could this qualify for G11? Ajf773 (talk) 21:34, 9 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. So Why 18:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samah Safi Bayazid[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Samah Safi Bayazid (sometimes: Samah Bayazid) and her husband, Muahammad, are well-known names in the Arab world. They also have profiles in IMDB. Some references to them in English resources http://hrp.law.harvard.edu/events/the-syrian-crisis-in-film-two-award-winning-short-narratives/ https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/21119 and http://www.masicna.com/samah-safi-bayazid.html --وسام زقوت (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as mentioned by user above, was profiled by TED and a speaker at TEDxTysons. Harvard screening film(s) is also a good start. I have added references linked above to the article in question. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Per above and a Gnews search. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:16, 17 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 The Quill (band)#Discography. czar 02:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Caravan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC, basically a tracklist. Propose redirect to The Quill. Kleuske (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article now meets criteria with various independent sources added.The Quill has released eight albums over 22 years on various independent labels all over the world. Voodoo Caravan was released by independent label SPV/Steamhammer. During the Voodoo Carvan tour The Quill performed all over Europe, at the Wacken Open Air festival among other. Since then they have toured all over Europe and in the United States and have released another 5 albums. Danger2 (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The band's page is a likely target for a redirect. One entry in AllMusic does not satisfy WP:GNG and the lack of chart success brings down WP:NALBUM as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TheGracefulSlick. Danger2, what "various independent sources" are you referring to? There is only one reference within the article to a music rating site. If you are referring to the external links, Discogs is not considered a reliable source and Encyclopaedia Metallum appears to be more of a directory listing than anything. With that said, it does list the tracks but does not add to the individual notability of the album in question. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:26, 9 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. It's clear from reading this discussion that there's a larger question to be answered here, i.e. how we should deal with lists of honors, in general, and that AfD is a poor forum for that. It is suggested that a discussion be started on some more appropriate talk page, and advertised widely to ensure participation from a wide group of editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1946 New Years Honours (Commander of the Order of the British Empire)[edit]

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

Whilst the main article has been tagged as too long, this article is much too narrow in its scope to be a useful sub-article. It would, in this form, never meet WP:GNG. AfD after a contested PROD. This AfD isn't to say that the main article should not be broken into smaller sub-sets, just not something as narrow as one particular class of an order of chivalry. Schwede 66 23:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if it included the whole order. eg. the entire Order of the British Empire subset? it would be quite long still, but more notable. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this article has been moved to 1946 New Years Honours (Order of the British Empire). Is the intention to list all MBEs and OBEs by year? I think that goes beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia. My father was an MBE (I can't be bothered to check now but I think he was given that honour in 1974 or 1975) but, as a modest man, he would be turning in his grave if he knew that that would lead to him being listed in an encyclopedia. CBEs and above tend to be notable, but the lower levels not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is to retain the existing complete listing, regardless of the individual notability of the awards, but simply to split the overly long lists into shorter sub-lists. I believe it would be unencyclopedic to omit the lower 2 of the 5 ranks on grounds on notability. particularly as the sources do not omit the lower ranks and WP:verifiability is easy to establish. Since your father as a modest man is unlikely to be notable, he will not have his own page, he will simply be included on the list. Category:Members of the Order of the British Empire shows enough (some 2400) MBE recipients (the lowest rank) with their own articles to justify its inclusion in the overall listings. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article simply reproduces what is in the London Gazette without adding any context. This falls foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:BADIDEA. I would support the inclusion of a list of CBEs and above somewhere, because they are likely to be notable, and also of the small minority of OBEs and MBEs who have or should have Wikipedia articles, but not this indiscrimate list. And, by the way, they are the New Year Honours, or possibly in some contexts the New Year's Honours, but certainly not the New Years Honours. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the year/years issue was already spotted and corrected on pages other than this one (which is in AfD). Your argument is counter to the whole point of why the MBE's and OBE's are being included, which is to add context to the otherwise overly short CBE article (which it was before this AfD). Contrary to your assertion, this list does infact pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE criteria (note the example given in the guidelines uses equal context and dissection of information. WP:BADIDEA is not even vaguely relevant to this article. This article meets all relevant WP:CSG guidelines and every entry on the list is individually WP:N and WP:V compliant. Not to mention that MBE's and OBE's are themselves notable topics. I don't doubt your father may be annoyed about being (briefly mentioned) in an encyclopedia, but that does not make the list unencyclopedic.A Guy into Books (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that every entry on this list is WP:V compliant, being sourceable to the London Gazette, but the vast majority are certainly not WP:N compliant. WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That applies here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aguyintobooks: has redirected the article while at Afd, I think. With the result that the Afd tag is was no longer on the actual article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging problem has been fixed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the IP above. Per WP:NOTDIR et al, we are just not here to simply duplicate what the London Gazette, or Yellow Pages, is already doing far better. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

would it be acceptable for me to userify the whole set? I could pair them down to only include notable people. A Guy into Books (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's part of a series of articles with over a 100 individual pages, and you will have to establish consensus for such a fundamental change on a relevant talk page first. Just as you could (should?) have done before dealing with this particular article. Schwede 66 20:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well since this series of articles are basically all identical, if this one gets deleted (per WP:NOTDIR et al) I will of course Afd tag the whole lot so as to be consistent. the article this was split from was wikipedias largest article for a while, so splitting them has already been decided (certainly no-one has objected), however it would appear a lot of the content once split is not going to be kept. (not notable if only the upper ranks, WP:NOTDIR if the full list). I welcome any ideas to deal with this. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD isn't the right venue for that discussion. Schwede 66 21:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list this in the proper venue? I dont really know where that would be, but I also don't want to deal with this page on its own when it is part a set, it seems to be inefficient to have to go through each one individually. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delayed response. A more appropriate venue would have been Talk:1946 New Year Honours, i.e. add to the existing discussion there. If you don't get an answer there, go to Talk:New Year Honours. If that doesn't generate some discussion, I'd go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals; that project appears to be reasonably active. Beyond that, a requests for comment would be the next best venue. As you can see, making a big and unilateral change that can affect a lot of pages does not really work. Schwede 66 07:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have made so many changes to it that it is now completely different from the original anyway. I will see what the opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals is, because these lists are incredibly long (this one was 1,028,847 bytes, now a more manageable size) and need some improvement to be usable lists. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aguyintobooks, maybe it would be better if you would familiarise yourself a bit more with Wikipedia, to the extent that you could find the proper venue for yourself, before proposing such wholesale changes to the way things are done here? I must say that I find your modus operandi very strange for someone who claims to be a lawyer. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is anything happening here changing how 'things are done around here', there must have been a previous instance of a set of similar articles being considered at the same time? (in lawyer speak this is a class action, a very common way of dealing with a bulk of similar cases at once). As far as the venue for discussion is concerned, well this is the place to discuss deletions, there isn't anywhere else. but perhaps a RfC would be more appropriate, as I can't see a consensus being reached here. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With rewrite to remove all non-notable MBE and OBE recipients. (Sources to be included for all notable ones). Propose that Afd is closed as article is completely different to when it was nominated. (the content has changed, the scope has been altered, even the name has changed). A Guy into Books (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note That there are now three levels to this. 1946 New Year Honours is the parent page. 1946 New Year Honours (Order of the British Empire) has been weeded to include only the higher classes. and 1946 New Year Honours (awards of OBE and MBE) has been split off to contain the bulk, this needs going though to make smaller. A Guy into Books (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a dispute about structure of lists and inclusion of list entries, not an issue for AFD. An RfC would be more appropriate. Peter James (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peter James. An RFC should be held if someone wants to delete these lists, not AFD one at a time. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:08, 17 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 Colin Thatcher. czar 01:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JoAnn Wilson[edit]

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

Not independently notable, should probably be redirected to Colin Thatcher article, which contains all the relevant details already. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC) No longer a penguin (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is why we have WP:RFD :) but, since we're here, Merge per nom, no independent notability, only sources view her through the prism of her husband, and subsequent death, and the case appears to have no broader consequences. — fortunavelut luna 13:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yeah...I'd prefer for this victim to be notable in her own right but the sources don't seem to support it, and that Project seems to exist only on Facebook. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. This was created at a different time in Wikipedia's history, when our notability and sourcing standards were nowhere near as strict as they are now. As things stand now, however, we don't normally keep articles about people notable primarily as the victims of other people's actions anymore — but having been murdered by her husband is the only notability claim she's really got. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Bearcat. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Colin Thatcher, as per Nom, et al.E.M.Gregory (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete, no indication that any past version of this article is worth saving. bd2412 T 20:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neuropsychophysiology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this for deletion a while back and still think it was kept on rather flimsy grounds. The evidence for this "field" being an actual thing distinct from neuropsychology or physiological psychology has become even weaker in the interim. It's also an orphan. It really should disappear. Famous _dog (c) 12:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 13:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 13:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this term here, my immediate gut reaction was to call to keep the article. However, having just read the article and seen how badly written it is, I think I can understand pleas to delete it. It even says at the end "neuro" and "physiology" both mean brain. I think this is nonsense - neuro means to do with the whole nervous system and all the nerves within it (not just the brain) and I think that one would be hard-pressed to find a respected figure in medicine or science who thought that "physiology" meant brain. Vorbee (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT GBook and GScholar searches show there might be an article to be written here, but what we have is almost a BLP violation, basically alleging that the thing is nonsense and giving a name for the supposed inventor, without citation. Better to start over. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is just promoting a FRINGEY altmed set of practices and people with some medical sounding "fun with greek", very similar to the list of phobias nonsense that goes on. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reviseit may clarify things to examine earlier versions from the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuropsychophysiology&oldid=297170655, changed to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuropsychophysiology&oldid=350761136 and then changed to the current version. It would appear that an originally positive article on what the first afd thought was sufficiently notable has been changed by the nominator into a negative article--with the negative material completely unsourced, and apparently justified in the edit summaries as"(I lecture in psychophysiology and neuroscience, so I reckon I'm a good enough "expert"", who then nominated for deletion. I consider this a very unjustifiable way of dealing with it--whether or not it is nonsense. It is altogether unfair to first destroy an article and then list it for deletion. (I am making no judgment on whether or not the concept is nonsense). The proper way is to write a NPOV article with the negative material sourced instead of merely asserted, and then possibly considering it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, hang on a minute. I feel like I'm being accused of something. This article has never been any good, no matter how far you go back in it's history. I came across it when it was tagged for attention by an expert and I couldn't find any evidence that it was anything other than fringy fringeness promoted by somebody who has since shut down their website. The "positive" form of this article was positive because it was full of promotion, inappropriate synth and unsourcery. The more "negative" statements in the current version of the article are also unsourced because this isn't a thing. I still do not understand why this was kept after the first AfD, and since nobody has bothered to improve it since then it should probably just be put out of it's misery. There is nothing notable or verifiable about this supposed "field." Famous _dog (c) 10:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT: there may be a notable topic here somewhere, but this article ain't it. My favourite part was:

...is a term coined by Michele Trimarchi^[who?] ...

Barring some major cleanup in the course of this AfD (if this even possible), I'm going with "delete". No objection to restoration, if it can be done with RS, in an encyclopedic fashion. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the few times TNT will make me actaully !Vote del instead keep. The best word I could find to describe this was nonsense, so I may have a bit of bias against it. The title should be at the spelling bee. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:25, 17 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of scandals with "-gate" suffix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unencyclopedic listcruft. KMF (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no case to answer -- see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew D. (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Andrew Davidson. Article itself is also well-sourced (286 in total). 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As majority of the list entries have their own articles (and can safely assume as notable events) this passes WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list's criteria are clear and in keeping with NLIST. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:NPASR Like the first respondent says, there is no case to answer. Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is actually a useful list and better sourced than most of the articles I have seen written in a similar format.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The suffix is very widely known in the English-speaking world and is certainly notable enough for track-keeping. Most seperate articles don't mention the nickname, and non-articles about the seperate entries deserves recognition. Even if the article is still deleted (which it won't, clear consensus above), we need a category listing the same thing I'd say.Gaioa (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the topic is clearly notable. Independent, reliable sources show this, just the first page of a Google search shows that the phenomenon of naming scandals "-gate" is a practice notable enough for Wikipedia. This, this, this, this, this all cover the actual naming phenomenon in-depth and "-gate" scandals receive significant coverage in their own right, such as this, this and this. DrStrauss talk 09:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate for stand-alone list per Ajf773 and DrStrauss. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 23:41, 12 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 01:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bellows[edit]

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

Non-notable person who fails WP:NACTOR. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources including articles from Variety substantiating Matthew's past work on Grimm/other series and promoting his upcoming series regular work in the sci-fi series Extinct (info on that to be added to page subsequently)-- -specterofthepast — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecterofthePast (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to pass any of the criteria for notability under WP:NACTOR. He was only in 1 episode each of the three shows listed. If he becomes a regular on a significant show, he may become notable at some point, but for now it is WP:TOOSOON.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, does not meet the criteria for notability under WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not satisfying WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR at this time, though I would not be opposed to redirecting this to Extinct (2017 TV series) since he is a regular on the upcoming program. gongshow talk 02:41, 15 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 WP:G12. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 05:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedic article. Fbdave (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually in the process of placing a PROD on this heap of flaming WP:OR at the same time as the nominator did so. Article has no useful content and is pure sectarian screed, with a sprinkling of anti-Semitism on top (see the "Jewish author" section). It also appears to have been previously deleted through the AfD process, and should be deleted as such.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I place nominate the page for speedy deletion? Fbdave (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure. An article by the same name seems to have been created by the same user, so if it was substantially identical it would be eligible for speedy deletion under G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). But I'm not an admin, so I can't see the old version to know if it was identical or not. Might be better to just let the AfD run its course.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So, plagiarism? I looked at the wikiislam site and it doesn't appear to be affiliated with wikipedia.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyright violation from http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammad_and_Historys_100_Most_Influential_People. Wikiislam's Creative Commons license isn't compatible with Wikipedia's and we can't use material taken directly from that site. (Specifically, Wikiislam uses a BY-NC -- attribution & noncommercial use -- license, and we can't use material with a noncommercial use license.) The article that was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History was actually much better than this version, as it was not devoted to an anti-Islam polemic nor did it include strands of antisemitism. (If for some reason this article is not deemed to be a copyvio, delete as completely non-neutral.) After the speedy deletion, redirect to the author of the book, Michael H. Hart. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:02, 9 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Pinkalla[edit]

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

non-notable bowler, did nothing of national acclaim to warrant a page Fronticla (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article does not have much information but he had world records in his sport, won international competitions, was as high as second in the national league, and inducted into a hall of fame as per this reliable source, also book sources here, and here Atlantic306 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the obit is unverified, family reported info. He's not that well known. There's national bowlers of the year that still don't have articles here. Fronticla (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ATHLETE criteria for competing at the international level. Argument "nothing of national acclaim" is invalid. Obit was written by newspaper's sports writer. Was there some specific info from obit that was in the article that was incorrect? Lack of other articles does not justify deletion of this article. StrayBolt (talk) 20:47, 10 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:CSD#G4. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

CSD'd 2 days ago under G4 however 2 days later and it's still sat here so figured AFD would be quicker, Anyway should be deleted as per the previous AFD, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 01:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ajf773 & Colapeninsula who participated in the last AFD. –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per G4. Ajf773 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Also some WP:Crystal violations likely (the CU movie for one). 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:10, 9 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. by User:RegentsPark as WP:G11 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yandex.People’s Map[edit]

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

There are two problems with this article. First, it is almost entirely an advertisement for the service, and reads like a brochure, and is not a neutral description of the service. Second, neither this article nor a Google search provides in-depth coverage of the service. Whether the company itself is notable is another question. However, there is certainly no need for multiple articles. The first problem can be dealt with by a rewrite that would leave nearly nothing, and the service still would not be notable.

Tagged for G11, but tag removed by author improperly. However, let's go for a full deletion discussion now. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 9 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.

[1] Google Scholar https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=IuIinzgAAAAJ&hl=en. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] "Web of Science author data".

[1]

[2]