Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 14

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. ansh666 05:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Teodor von Burg

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Teodor von Burg
• Articles for deletion/Teodor von Burg (2nd nomination)

Teodor von Burg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Von Burg is categorized here as a mathematician. If so, then he must have a list of profound and recognized contributions to mathematics. As far as I see, he entered Exeter College undergraduate studies in 2012 but there is no information whether he finished it, no knowledge about distinction or recognitions particular to his study.

No one is a notable mathematician for just being successful at secondary school math level competitions.

His success at IMO is not correctly valued. Von Borg never won the first place. The highest one was the third place in 2010. So, if we give gold medal to the competition winner, the silver to the runner up, then this student would have no more than a single bronze medal in five runs. The criterion to win gold was to get no less than 30 out of 42 points. The real IMO competition star was Ciprian Manolescu, who participated 3 times, and every time he scored perfect 42 points (already noticed by Arimakat).

All those awards are no more than local moral incentives given to a promising student.

• Strong delete nom --BTZorbas (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  Note to closing admin: the above bulleted !vote has been added by nominator in direct contravention of WP:AFDFORMAT.  --Lambiam 19:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• neutral - I'm not sure that doing well on that hellish dissection isn't notable. I notice that there's nothing on the page since 2012. Nor is there anything I can find about him at a glance. Chances are though, that he'll be producing papers soon, and there aren't that many people in Category:Serbian mathematicians ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• delete - I do not see what makes him notable. CLCStudent (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I think that this article should be kept because it meets the requirements of policy. According to IMO's official website he has won four gold medals at the International Mathematical Olympiad, which is the mathematics field most important world event, widely described as the "most prestigious mathematical competitions in the world" and vaguely equal to the Olympics, which is why it's called an Olympiad. He was also won a silver medal and a bronze medal. All these medals can be verified. He is also second in the hall of fame, making him the IMO's second most successful participant ever. A short google search also shows many people describing him as the most successful IMO participant ever, although this is not quite accurate. But then the nominators comments are not accurate either, a gold medal is a gold medal. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Also I will point out that this article was put forward to be deleted before and kept, and the points made then are still valid. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment@Ilyina Olya Yakovna My statements are verifiable, therefore accurate. My main point "No one is a notable mathematician for just being successful at secondary school math level competitions." holds.--BTZorbas (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

However describing gold medals from what is widely described as one of the worlds most prestigious mathematics competitions as "local moral incentives given to a promising student" is not the finest example of an accurate statement. Nor is your hypothetical analogy about the medals particularly helpful since I got totally confused and thought you were saying something completely different. Also I think it is unfair to say that he is no longer notable because he is now the second most successful participant at the International Mathematical Olympiad, which is the main reason for deletion, since it was clearly decided to keep the article when he was the most successful participant. This being according to the International Mathematical Olympiad's own rankings, and not your own undisclosed personal ranking of what a notable mathematician is. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment@Ilyina Olya YakovnaPlease, stop distorting my statements. I said "All those awards are no more than local moral incentives given to a promising student." Search for the "award" word in the biography. Medals are not awards nor I ever equate these two things.--BTZorbas (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In the English language the word "medal" is a synonym of "award" with near identical meaning.^[1][2][3] You should have specified what awards you were talking about rather than vaguely stating "those awards" as you did not mention any awards other than his gold medals in what you wrote. English is not my first language but I feel you have written your comment in a most unclear way and without saying why exactly Teodor von Burg is not notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment@Ilyina Olya Yakovna Please, stop talking nonsense. English language, as any spoken language, is context dependent. I've used these two words ("medal", "award") exclusively in the biography context. The other two users who commented my proposal did not find anything wrong with the proposal.--BTZorbas (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly my complaint, you don't give any context, you just write about his IMO medals then make a random comment about awards and expect everyone to know what you mean.

But to break it down. He has:

• 4 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze medals at the International Mathematical Olympiad.
• 3 gold, 3 silver medals at the Balkan Mathematical Olympiad.
• 2 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze medals at the Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad.
• He is the most successful ever competitor of the Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad.
• He is the second most successful ever competitor of the International Mathematical Olympiad. (first place for 3 years).
• Record youngest competitor of the Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad, Balkan Mathematical Olympiad and International Mathematical Olympiad.
• He has taken part in 57 other mathematical competitions, with: 44 first, 11 second, and 2 third prizes.
• Saint Sava Award, for his contribution and commitment in the field of education.
• He was awarded the Charter of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
• Karić Brothers Award, in the field of scientific and research work.
• By my count, ten reliable sources in the article/identified.
• Another six or so non-English sources, being news reports and biographies that no one has included.
• A great many of mentions, mostly saying how he is the world's best young mathematician.

So really my point is why do you think this is not good enough? What possible reason to delete this article is there? It is very clear to me that he is notable according to your policy entitled WP:GNG and the other policy called WP:BIO which says the same. You are just hiding the facts behind vagueness that cannot be understood and pretending your concept of who is a notable mathematician is relevant when the policy clearly disagrees with you. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong delete Being a student competitor in math is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  Not by itself, but what about being a world-class competitor in the most renowned international maths competition in conjunction with having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Having written a book is also not a sign of notability, but that is not a particularly good reason for deleting Lemony Snicket.  --Lambiam 11:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lambiam The most renowned international SECONDARY SCHOOL maths LEVEL competition? Right? That competition is certainly a notable event, but neither of the competitors is a notable mathematician. Right?--BTZorbas (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

BTZorbas, I think you are confusing what is a notable person according to the policy with your opinion of what is a notable mathematician according to an external guide designed for adults, probably professors at that. There is no policy specially for mathematician's on Wikipedia, I have looked very carefully. Also for Wikipedia notability it does not matter that he is not an adult because his achievements are out of the ordinary. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. So far as I can see his work is cited by nobody. Not a single citation on GS. Fails WP:Prof and WP:GNG, nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

It worries me that you cannot see. There is much more, try searching for Teodor fon Burg (16,400 results) and Teodor von Burg (52,500 results). Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
References

You might like to look at this essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

You might want to actually read WP:NPROF. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have done that and contributed to several of its archived talk pages. What should I be looking for? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

Well the WP:NPROF policy says it only applies to academics/professors and this person is not an academic and has never worked as one, certainly not as a professor. Then you say that the article "Fails WP:Prof, nothing else.". Yet in the WP:NPROF policy it clearly says:

From WP:NPROF.
This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.[1] It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines.

Therefore your recommendation to delete, based on the fact that this article fails an optional policy which does not apply to the article seems really strange to me. Because if the article fails nothing else as you say that should be a reason to keep. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ilyina Olya Yakovna Could you, please, refrain from further distortions of other people comments and Wikipedia rules misinterpretations? The guideline segment you quoted above talks about notability of AN ACADEMIC NOT ABOUT A SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENT NOTABILITY!--BTZorbas (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. What part of,

Delete. So far as I can see his work is cited by nobody. Not a single citation on GS. Fails WP:Prof, nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

has any basis in policy or any relevance to this person whatsoever? Sorry for being a perfectionist. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong delete, because this is confounding the (possibly already questionable) values of undergraduate contests and their notability, like some Olympics or Olympiads (a misconception of meaning as a contest per se), themselves and the notability of their "medalists", who still have to show their notability on the job. (Does "least non-notable" exist, and is a notable property therefore?) Purgy (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)′
• Weak keep (!vote altered per TimTempleton - cultural differences) WP:GNG doesn't require that editors spend time analyzing if somebody is important or not. It simply requires we find if enough coverage in independent reliable sources exists. It undoubtedly does, therefore specific sub guidelines from WP:BIO or others are mostly irrelevant - they are there to help make a decision but shouldn't be abused to delete something simply because one has never heard of it or because subject doesn't meet one specific sub-criteria which might not even apply. If this were the one-time winner of some competition, then yes delete per WP:BLP1E. However, article subject has received sustained coverage for multiple events and, per WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." - The 'Charter of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts', if not the gold medals (which I agree are probably not that important), is clearly such an significant award, being awarded by a national level institution. Judging the intent behind the award is WP:OR and does not render the award moot. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment @Ilyina Olya Yakovna alias 198.84.253.202 Yet another misinterpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines from the same person. WP:ANYBIO states:
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
Von Burg is categorized as a mathematician. If so, then where is the list of his contributions "in his specific field"? I found none.--BTZorbas (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Pings don't work for IPs.WP:ANYBIO states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included [emphasis mine]" - there is no requirement to meet all conditions. Of course, it is possible that a subject meets the criteria and is yet not notable, however given the repeated coverage in RS I don't think that is the case here. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

BTZorbas, what are you talking about? This person has made a massive impact to Serbian mathematics, he is the best known junior mathematics competitor of his generation. This is explained many times in ten national newspapers over several years. And there is no doubt this will remain on the historical record for some time, especially if he goes on to do mathematics after graduation, because it is an achievement that is out of the ordinary. I seriously doubt you are doing anything but trying to hold up your nomination now, seriously there is no shame in making the article better rather than deleting it. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

BTZorbas, what do you base your accusation on that 198.84.253.202 and Ilyina Olya Yakovna are the same editor? Merely on the fact that they agree on this issue? You cannot wildly fling accusations around without specific evidential basis.  --Lambiam 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Provisional delete. First, let's clarify some things. He certainly doesn't pass WP:PROF, but that's irrelevant if he passes WP:GNG. The nomination says that he's listed as a mathematician but is not notable as a mathematician, but again, this is not an argument for deletion (at most, it might be an argument for removal from mathematician categories).
  But does he pass GNG? At a cursory look, I really don't think so. The hits that are being adduced as evidence seem mainly to be what you would call "passing mentions" (e.g., a listing in a table of competition winners). To support notability, you'd need the source to say, at a minimum, something beyond the fact that he won. I don't think we want to establish a regime of presumptive notability just for winning math contests, even prestigious ones.
  I said "provisional" because I could certainly have missed some more meaty coverage in the sea of trivial hits. If that's the case, the defenders should narrow down the refs being adduced as evidence and point us to the strongest ones. Also, this is a case where he may not be notable now, but there's a strong possibility he'll become notable in the future, and the deletion should carry no prejudice against re-creation in that case. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • link Article with in depth coverage from Serbian news station B92.
  • link Extended in depth coverage for when Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic congratulated Teodor von Burg on one of his gold medals. Source is from mid-market Serbian newspaper Blic.
  • link An in depth article about Teodor von Burg receiving a scholarship to study at Oxford University after his acclaimed Olympiad successes. Source is from the Serbian newspaper Večernje novosti.
  • link Article in Basta Balkana magazine.
  • link another article from Večernje novosti.

• @Trovatore: I show these articles so that it is easier for you and you don't need to look at all the links or search on Google, where there is more, although it is mostly more of the same, but from different sources. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. 19 is an interview and No. 26 seems to contain some biographical data - that seems to satisfy the criteria. A good number are indeed simply lists of winners. Agree with the remark against prejudice in case this gets deleted (though one must take care not to get into WP:CRYSTAL territory, unlike Ilyina above). WP seems to have also a lacking coverage of subjects which are not British or American (Battle of Charleroi is an example I'm working on - compare with the excellent coverage on closely related Battle of Mons which involves British troops). As I said above, subject also meets criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO for winning a nationally prestigious award. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I withdraw my !vote. It does look like there are sources with more than trivial mentions (note to User:Ильина Оля Яковна: sometimes less is more — if you had started with those, rather than spamming in tens of trivial hits, it would have been more convincing from the start). As to whether the sources are "reliable", I don't have any reason to think they're not, but I also have no familiarity with them. So I'll abstain for now. --Trovatore (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Lack of substantive independent sources that are actually about the subject - unsurprising given his age. WP:TOOSOON, at best. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Per that linked page, "WP:ANYBIO allows that ANY individual, actors included, may be presumed notable if 'the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times'," which article subject did receive. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I give up, even listing 5 articles that are only about this person, people still pay no attention and say it should be deleted, it seems Wikipedia is biased against young people. I will not watch this page now. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

WP isn't biased against anything - editors are (Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage). Again, as I said above, coverage of a sourced topic shouldn't be deleted simply because it is something distant to most editors. The sad thing about discussions is that people don't always take the time to read every comment, often making summary judgements with little basis in either sources or policy (often misunderstood). If it was just me, I'd say ignore WP:GNG when it prevents you adding a good article about something, and this is a case were WP:IAR should apply even if there are more persons who say "delete" (ignoring this isn't a vote and that restatement of the same opinion isn't an argument). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete there's no claim of notability other than his performance at high-school level competitions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Re above "national level award" + non-trivial mention in RS 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I went to his Serbian Wikipedia page [[4]], to see what kind of sourcing there was, since the limited sourcing for this English article and a Google search in English clearly point to a delete. I don't read Serbian, but was able to identify four news articles from Serbian publications, of which three were just about him. Amidst a handful of dead links, the rest are announcements about the math olympiad tournament and promotional fliers. That's just not quite enough, especially when you consider how because of cultural differences, this news would be of much more interest to Serbian media than to the US. (Anyone here know that the US was one of two teams ever to get perfect team scores at the Olympiad? Me neither. Fails WP:GNG. Probably also WP:TOOSOON, since there's no current scholarly news coming from Oxford, but that may change and this can be revisited. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- WP:TOOSOON: the subject is not yet notable per review of available sources. High-school level competitions are an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

But the subject is not claimed to be notable as an academic - and other claims to notability include national level awards which meet WP:ANYBIO (and judging the intent behind has no basis in any policy). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: Pseudo-biography that may be TOOSOON. Birthdate/place and nothing else--------fast forward------mathematics student that won several awards----fast forward----- nothing since 2012. Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Alt-Libertarian

Alt-Libertarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be promotion for radicalcapitalist.org and/or the philosophies/politics it represents. The page name itself is almost certainly a neologism and searches only return similar organisations and opinion pieces. The sources provided certinly do not assert notability. A CSDcorp I issued was declined because I first assumed this to be an organised group of people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I was in the process of nominating it myself. This doesn't appear to be a notable topic. There are only two sources cited, a personal blog I've never heard of and a Facebook page, neither of which are reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - A neologism with no reliable source provided, obvious delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I declined the csd -- I should have realized there was another speedy criterion that did fit well enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - can't find any reliable sources, none suggested by the article.Jacona (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• DELETE per Jacona - absence of reliable sources Thalium (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Cannot find any reliable sources either. Lacypaperclip (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Apart from OR, this seems to be a POV fork of libertarian conservatism and alt-right. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Nominator comment: Speedy close please. This article is a 98.7% COPYVIO of 4chan.org, a Wikipedia blacklisted forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I checked for copyvio here, they appear to have copied from us. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Snow delete because I wanted to get in on the fun. Lepricavark (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Integrated biotectural system

Integrated biotectural system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

1. WP:NOT advert Reads like a press release for an indiscernible product that didn't happen. 2. WP:N Failed to WP:V with so many dead links that make me question if there's any RS for this, and PROD and number of editors questioning both of these on the talk means it should be AfDed Widefox; talk 23:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

2012 Oldham explosion

2012 Oldham explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Classic WP:NOTNEWS event. Mattg82 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. This does not appear to pass WP:EVENT and it especially fails WP:LASTING. There are two bursts of RS coverage; first for the event itself and second for the criminal proceedings eight months later. After that coverage disappears. Blowing up one's house by tampering with the gas is not that unusual a crime. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and Gene93k above. No sense in having an entry for every time someone manages to blow their house up by behaving stupidly, or Wikipedia could be filled with reports of exploding meth labs. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The gas explosion, caused by a suicidal man, killed a 2-year-old in a nearby house. Twelve neighboring houses were destroyed, adn 175 houses evacuated. Three houses were destroyed and 100 houses evacuated. A memorial fund to the dead child paid for a play area/ park for children. The explosion was a national story, in all the British papers, Child dies and man badly burnt as 'gas blast' wrecks homes, Jenkins, Russell. The Times; London (UK) [London (UK)]27 June 2012: 5. [ National: Parents of blast victim, two, pay tribute to their 'amazing little man': Family make emotional visit to site of tributes: Man, 32, released on bail pending further inquiries, Carter, Helen. The Guardian; London (UK) [London (UK)]30 June 2012: 17.); and again during trial, conviction The accidental revenge of a jilted boyfriend that killed a two-year-old boy, (Hall, Richard. The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]20 Feb 2013)[5]. A children's park was built as a memorial play park in memory of tragic gas blast toddler: The state-of-the-art equipment will be installed in Bullcote Park where Jamie Heaton took his first steps.Britton, Paul. Manchester Evening News; Glasgow (UK) [Glasgow (UK)]20 July 2015: 15. [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per E.M.Gregory. Also coverage in 2014 [7].Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - per coverage established. The delete rationale from PohranicniStraze is irrelevant since we dont have an entry for every time someone blows their house up. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep there is lasting coverage. Add this[8] source. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep while I am sympathetic to the deletion arguments, there is sufficient sourcing and evidence of lasting coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Linsen Tower

Linsen Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No such tower exists. SkyscraperPage.com is the only source given and this is not a reliable source. For "one of the first and tallest wooden towers in both the state of Hesse and Germany ever built with a modern trend" it should be possible to find more sources and also images. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 21:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Right after a bit of digging around some forums I found the official website which was dead but I found a copy of it on archive.org. It basically was a project that never got started due to funding issues and since according to Google the hotel associated with it has closed it probably never will be started. Mattg82 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as a strange and unique semi-WP:HOAX ... something that could have been real but never was, as discovered by Mattg82. Also fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the consensus is that the sources do not justify an article due to e.g reliability concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Salman Muqtadir

Salman Muqtadir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

References are not to reliable sources; I can't find evidence of notability. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and for poor quality of writing.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think this article is not need to be delete because this is an article about a Bangladeshi Youtuber. The reference are valid by source. All the information are right. So tell me how to stop ″Nomination of Salman Muqtadir for deletion″. If you need evidence then here is Proof. The proof reference from The Daily Star newspaper. It is the high-quality website of Bangladesh. Thank You Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 13:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Siddiq Sazzad is the Creator of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.19 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.-Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.19 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- Per nom. Non notable and poor, promotional writing style. No rationale to keep this article. - Mar11 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- Per nom. No reliable sources.--119.30.47.115 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Even if not a copyvio, the few notability concerns have not been addressed (that other topics have a page does not mean this one can as well) and all keep !voters are SPAs and aren't addressing notability issues, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Demers

Michael Demers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Just as valid a page as Michael Mandiberg, Constant Dullaart or any other contemporary new media artist. Michael Demers is cross-listed on a dozen other content-related wikipedia pages, and this material has been online and vetted by users since 2013.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.57.124 (talk • contribs)

— 73.253.57.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep No criteria for nomination is mentioned. This person has been mentioned/published in numerous reliable sources, based on the article and a search.198.58.161.137 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• User:Theredproject speedy-delete-tagged page Michael Demers at 02:39, 25 December 2017 for copyright violation of https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-demers-43b11781 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• User:Anthony Appleyard where is the copyright violation? All info on the wiki page is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.57.124 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The material on the wiki that is similar to that on LinkedIn is cited to published material. If anything, LinkedIn is not citing properly. No issue here. Apexspry (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• Keep wiki page that is similar to that on LinkedIn is cited to published material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:88C0:5E00:E4FA:2577:D7BC:F984 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

— 2605:6000:88C0:5E00:E4FA:2577:D7BC:F984 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I stand by my Speedy Delete for WP:COPYVIO as it is a direct word for word copy paste from https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-demers-43b11781. User:73.253.57.124 (who is/affiliated with the WP:SPA User:Apexspry?) asked User:Anthony Appleyard to bring it back, who nominated it for deletion. Re: "cross-listed on a dozen other content-related wikipedia pages, and this material has been online and vetted by users since 2013" the page is linked on 6 articles, at least 3 of which were added by Apexspry, the original author of the page, and the remainder were added by SPA IP addresses shortly thereafter. It isn't on any other wiki projects. The reality is that the page hasn't really been vetted, per se: the article has seen light editing, and other editors have come through and removed puffery, and flagged the article for various problems, and Apexspry has repeatedly removed those flags. I also note that Apexspry claims the photograph of the artist as Own Work (it also appears on the linkedin page too) which implies WP:COI also. Closing mod should not the preponderance of IP and redlink commenters here in this AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment if the copyvio is real , i.e. the Linkedin page predates the wikipedia page, then you should take action to clean it up. User Dianaa is usualy happy to revdel things.198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Why doesn't someone just edit the page, instead of killing it entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.57.124 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• I stand by my Keep for Michael Demers. I am not, nor am I related to or connected to, the subject as User:Theredproject implies, so no violation of WP:COI here. I have also not repeatedly removed flags unless I have made edits to the page to correct such flags. I am not quite the power user that User:Theredproject is, but I don't think that should preclude me from being a part of this community. I will make edits to the page, even though my information is cited from printed material, and User:Theredproject can hopefully move on. Apexspry (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

you cannot !vote twice. Struck.198.58.161.137 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This sounds personal. User:Theredproject aka Michael Mandiberg is a new media artist, trying to censor the page of another new media artist? Conflict of interest here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.78.78 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

— 155.43.78.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You need to Assume Good Faith. I don't see anything personal in the nomination.198.58.161.137 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The page has been revised as to not confuse anyone concerned about WP:COPYVIO. Apexspry (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete PROMO by SPA...likely a vanity page. Most of the anon "keeps" above are likewise SPAs. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Folks, the original request of a Speedy Delete by User:Theredproject was for WP:COPYVIO. The page has since been edited to amend that complaint. Whether the page is a PROMO, or I'm a SPA, or I've got clones or am soliciting responses seem to be another issue -- and there are cogent arguments to be made against any of those assumptions (Assume Good Faith, right?). Can we resolve the issue of the WP:COPYVIO before we move on to these other (alleged) infractions?Apexspry (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Clarification. The article is at AfD and my !vote is based on the merits of that issue. The article's subject is at a junior college and does not show any acceptable (for our purposes) impact w.r.t. publishing, books, cited articles, etc. (NOTE: There is another person having a similar name, who is well-cited.) You are a SPA in that your short edit record shows edits which only support the person of Michael Demers. There is a strong positive correlation with being a fan or vanity page, which in turn correlates strongly with not being notable. The article is basically promotional...another correlated bad sign. The sources aren't very good and the claim for notability is pretty flimsy, basically that this person is a professor and has taught. So, aside from whatever COPY problems there might have been, the problem now is demonstrating notability. I'm not seeing it. Agricola44 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Debate seemed a little suspicious, so I checked and tagged the SPA contributions. It seems that all the "keeps" so far are from SPA accts. Agricola44 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

you tagged me incorrectly, and I have removed it. Check contribs properly before tagging like that.198.58.161.137 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think so. Your account is 3 days old and you happened to jump into an esoteric area of internal WP debate at the same time as a whole bunch of other new-found accounts to "keep" this article? I guess you feel that because you've also made edits on a half-dozen other articles in those 3 days, you should be considered a seasoned, disinterested editor. Most seasoned, disinterested editors would not consider 3 days to be sufficient dues. Agricola44 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Me again, my IP reset. I counted 17 distinct pages that I worked on, including extensive edits to Gerald le Dain. Arrogant editors like yourself, who like to pick on IP accounts for no reason as you do here, are a significant problem in Wikipdia. I'm not an SPA, you tagged me as one...198.58.168.40 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Super. Now we're going to play some childish games. Very constructive. Agricola44 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Can we get back to the matter at hand? The page has been updated. Does this satisfy the initial issues as raised by User:Theredproject? And can User:Agricola44 tell me how many edits have to be recorded before he stops accusing those of us with a just a few edits as SPA?Apexspry (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• You can be flippant about it, if you wish. Your edits have only supported Michael Demers, either on the article itself, or on other articles to insert his name. It suggests COI and lessens the credibility of your !vote. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete promo of a non-notable artist. Why do these SPAs think they are going to fool veteran editors who have seen their tricks before? Lepricavark (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Arena League

Canadian Arena League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Current sources on this article are direct from the organization. A quick search only turns up one reliable result that's blocked by a paywall. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• No opinion yet, although this does smell a bit of WP:CRYSTAL. But just so it's clear, paywalled sites are entirely acceptable as references. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I am seeing two OK sources about the announcement: this and this. There is also a bit of more WP:ROUTINE coverage in this. I would likely say it is WP:TOOSOON as they don't have a single team and have not generated much in the way of coverage from very reliable sources. But others may feel differently. Yosemiter (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Delete under my toosoon argument. If this thing fizzles out, and that seems likely with their website currently showing "Account Suspended" as the mainpage, then it could never be more than the one three sentence paragraph in the lead, which makes the article fall under the problems in WP:PERMA and WP:WHYN. Yosemiter (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent sources. I could not find more than the 2 sources already mentioned above by Yosemiter. Perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON if the league finally takes off at some point.—Bagumba (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. There's not enough information or coverage about the league yet to have an article, and it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume it will ever function as a football league. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Evidence of notability failed to be presented during the course of this discussion, via significant coverage, in multiple, independent, reliable, sources. Therefore, this article is found to lack the requisite notability for inclusion on this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Jesse Rice

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jesse Rice
• Articles for deletion/Jesse Rice (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Jesse Rice (3rd nomination)

Jesse Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wrote exactly one notable song. The sources listed are all about the song he wrote, and not about him himself. Searching found no sources that were about him personally, absolutely no biographical info found whatsoever. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" after three relists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Are any of these sources any good?: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Adam9007 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• If this article fails notability, then it should be redirected to Cruise (song), the song mentioned by nom. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as is not notable and is only trivially mentioned on Cruise (song). PriceDL (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural close  Nominator waited 12 hours and 21 minutes after the previous AfD to nominate the article again.  The volunteer community has already considered this article for three weeks.  See WP:Renominating for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Unscintillating: And absolutely none of that is set in stone. Stop wikilawyering. The last discussion was closed because it garnered no new comments after two relists. Already, this nomination has garnered a far more lively discussion than the last two combined, so it's clear that the renomination was not a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Why did you not wait two months?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Unscintillating: Why do you think I absolutely have to? Again, it's clear that relisting immediately has had a positive effect. Two months is not mandatory. There's a reason WP:NPASR exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• This wasn't a WP:NPASR closure.  Just what do you think it means "with prejudice"? (open book question).  Unscintillating (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is nothing saying I absolutely must not reopen. Is the two months thing mandatory? NO. So stop wikilawyering. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Your avoidance of the question of what it means "with prejudice" is your Wikilawyering, because this is written and you've already cited it as relevant.  But that meaning can be inferred that it means that there is a community prejudice against hasty renominations.  Please withdraw your nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Why should I withdraw a nomination that already has a significant amount of participation? That would be completely unnecessarily blunting an active discussion just for the sake of process. Again, will you just tell me what part of your so called "two month" rule is mandatory? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not a wikilawyer, so I don't know, but disruption is a blockable offense when it the block is needed to prevent future disruption.  No hard feelings, ok?  I'm done here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. His song "Cruise" is the highest-selling country music song of all time and only country song to receive a Diamond certification by the RIAA.[9] He has other songs too. Signed to a worldwide publishing deal with Ole Music Publishing also.desmay (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Desmay: But he wrote literally nothing else of note. He was also one of five writers on the song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable musician who co-wrote a popular country song and won some awards in life. No way this meets GNG at all. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete- Being one of the authors on one notable song in no way confers notability on this person. Reyk _YO! 06:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Co-writer of one of the biggest (not to mention overplayed) country hits ever. There certainly is more coverage on specifically him and his work. [10][11][12]. The nom re-nominating this in less than 24 hours is bad form. --Oakshade (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Guess it needs to be said per another comment below, these sources show significant coverage by secondary sources independent of the subject indicating passing GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Simply co-writing a once popular country song is not notability. That's a WP:INHERITED violation. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:INHERITED has nothing to do with this article. WP:INHERITED would apply if this person was simply ‘’related’’ to the co-writer of one of the most popular songs in Country history who has also received in-depth coverage.--Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Does not meet GNG: no significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Retarget to Cruise is acceptable as an option if that's his only Wikipedia-notable contribution. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Lots and lots of articles about this subject, his albums, song he's written, his wprk with other artists and his performances. I added a some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaArmy (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

References

• Delete or merge: -- the subject with co-credit with the authorship of the song, among four total contributors. This is insufficient to base notability solely on the song. Significant RS coverage addressing the subject's career has not bee presented at this AfD, so deletion should be the natural outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or merge: Not notable per GNG. Co-wrote a song ("Cruise") with five other people that received notability. Digging around it can be found the subject is involved with the Country beach songs Sessions I, II, and II but nothing notable. Rice performs locally around Florida on front porches or the bow of a boat. A fan can find sales on iTunes or other locations and when I searched almost everything was advertisement related to purchasing a song. We end up with a pseudo-biography about a man that co-wrote a popular song. "Almost" clears WP:COMPOSER but that includes (among other criteria) "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work.". This BLP mentions "Cruise" four times and any mention I can find on searching circles around this co-wrote song. Otr500 (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as per Reyk. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. ansh666 05:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

My Friends from Afar

My Friends from Afar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not yet meet WP:TVSERIES. This was previously deleted at MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:My Friends From Afar) as a draft. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Does not meet WP:TVSERIES yet. Unless non-English reliable sources are found, this may be a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. desmay (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• On the fence. I'm on the fence here. There is coverage, but maybe not enough yet. The article is fairly poor, and I've needed to have chunks of copyvio revision-deleted from it twice four times already. On the other hand, it's a real thing, it obviously has some popularity, and I'm fairly sure we will end up with an article in the short to medium term. Perhaps just move it back to Draft to keep all the laboriously re-histmerged history intact? (I voted delete in the previous discussion for the Draft, but I am finding a bit more coverage now) -- Begoon 01:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing to Weak keep, on the strength of increasing coverage in reliable sources, as was always likely. -- Begoon 02:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep should keep it until the series ends, and wait for some sources to pop up. The reason for the lack of sources is due to the fact that the series is currently ongoing. -1.02 editor (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep It does meet WP:TVSERIES as it got national coverage and aired in the prime 9pm timeslot. Additionally, although the sources are not much, they still support the article accordingly. -1.02 editor (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep There is a Chinese-language review from Lianhe Zaobao (very reliable source) which I believe establishes notability: [13]. Someone familiar with the show needs to add it to the article. Timmyshin (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have, but unfortunately my Chinese is of poor standards and I have no clue where to inline it. 1.02 editor (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried to add something: [14], but I'm relying on a very poor Google translation, and someone who can read the original Chinese should be able to vastly improve it. -- Begoon 02:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

MindWorks Media

MindWorks Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing else but few films to their name. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, being the production company of three notable films. Mar4d (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

They are business ventures. So, they need significant independent coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- a non notable production company. Article created as an apparent walled garden around ARY Films, with promo copy such as:

• ...ARY Films and MindWorks Media joined hands to produce Pakistani movies that intend to take the local box office to the next level...

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom, no indications of notability, topic fails GNG, references fail WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was move to draft. Now located at Draft:Stree (2018 film). ansh666 05:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Dinesh Vijan film

Untitled Dinesh Vijan film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As of yet non-notable film that is due to be released in the future. The article as it is now fails WP:NFILM, as the film has yet to be released or even given a title. This also contitiutes a failure of WP:TOOSOON and potentially WP:CRYSTAL. Requesting and would recommend a move to draft, though deletion could also be considered. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom or at least userfy until release and can determine notability. Also, the article is poorly written and needs editing.--Rpclod (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy as titleless film that has not yet started principal photography. !dave 13:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Remove from mainspace draftify, userify, or delete as appropriate. If it doesn't have a title yet... Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The filming has begun. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy per WP:TOOSOON. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

How is it TOOSOON, when the principal photography has started? Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

TOOSOON to meet the WP:NOTFILM requirements, namely having a significant or lasting impact on film.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete or move to userspace/draftspace if requested. This is what we have draft and userspace for. This doesn't belong in article space at this time. --Michig (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Mahdi Al Aboudi

Mahdi Al Aboudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP and WP:MUSICIAN. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 15:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternative search term:

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

• Delete I was going to close this but did a search and decided to uphold the nomination. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment You do not speak Arabic at all and do not understand it.So it is difficult to judge the article in the absence of these conditions.So I vote on the survival of the article and provided for improvement.These words also apply to these articles Jafar al-Kashmi,Ali Aldelfi & Nazar AlQatari.Now I want friends to vote on articles @Arthistorian1977:,@RingtailedFox:,@Abishe:,@Anarchyte:,@Narutolovehinata5:, @Operator873:, @Hebrides:, @Joe Roe:, @Onel5969:, @Derek R Bullamore:, @GrahamHardy:, @Rich Farmbrough: & @Cmr08: what is your comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamIRAQI (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia articles need to have coherent content. This article lacks any useful content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Business-agile enterprise

Business-agile enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per previous discussion at Talk:Business-agile enterprise#RfC: title that exists in no books, it appears someone made this title up, but then added some marginally relevant content within. However, there's been zero effort to clean it up a few months after the RFC, so it appears to me that it's best to delete it then. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete this is effectively WP:OR. A non-notable neologism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus was not able to be established during the course of this discussion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

John H. Stamler

John H. Stamler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

County prosecutor that does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Outside of an obituary, the only mentions of him are routine during coverage of crimes that he prosecuted. Rusf10 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• The basis of this nomination is disputed, as POLITICIAN has no limitation for "routine", and there is no evidence that the "mentions" are based on a WP:BEFORE D1 source search.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete county prosecutors are rarely notable for such, and nothing of the coverage is enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• The basis of this !vote is disputed, as there is no evidence that "the coverage" refers to source searches, especially since the !vote found no significant GNG coverage to discuss.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Once again excellent referencing with the NYT obit and an AP obit, you can't really ask for more impeccable sourcing to meet the GNG standard for a standalone biography. That anyone would argue that "nothing of the coverage is enough to pass the general notability guidelines" is rather silly. --RAN (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputably about him meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep  A NYT obit is a strong indicator of Wikipedia GNG notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Clarification: GNG begins, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..."  Sources is plural, so editors can know that one source does not satisfy GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Appears to be some bundok prosecutor with no notibility elsewhere. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• The basis of this !vote is disputed, as there is evidence that it is an inflammatory and prejudicial personal attack.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as Stamler was never a Wikipedia editor, and is instead the content, NPA does not apply. I'd suggest you read up on WP:HORSEMEAT or WP:GOI. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so as not to have this confused with WP:NPA, I have struck the words to which you have objected.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed as keep based on a misreading of the nom statement. Now that that's been pointed out, there's no clear consensus yet that notability is met, since the obituaries are disputed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 05:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment- so there is no confusion about my above statement, I was pointing out the the obituary was routine coverage and in the other sources Stamler was not the subject of the article, the sources merely mentioned or quoted him. I do not believe this meets GNG. Two of the keep arguments are (wrongly imo) based off of the assumption that a New York Times obituary equals automatic notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, in your nomination, you stipulated that "an obituary" was not part of the "routine" coverage of crimes he prosecuted.  Now your statement is that "the obituary" is "routine", but there are two obituaries. 
  "John Stamler named citizen of the Year" is not mere mentions or quoting him. "John Harry Stamler (December 3, 1938 – March 25, 1990)" is not mere mentions or quoting him. 
  Your post here misrepresents me for claiming "automatic notability" for the NYT obit, as my actual words are "a strong indicator".  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if this guy has ten obituaries, it doesn't establish notability. And the citizen of the year award by the "Memorial General Development Foundation" is a joke because no one has ever heard of that foundation, it's not a notable award.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: This person seems noteworthy to me. Jefstevens (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment  From this diff of 30 December 2017, we have DGG saying, "As for the NYT obits, I can think of only one or two from the 20th century where it was not held decisive--even for socialites without any particular accomplishments."  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That's an opinion.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: I thought that was pretty clear, but maybe User:DGG will clarify.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: give it a rest. I usually wouldn't mention it, but if there ever was a textbook example of WP:BLUDGEON, this would be it.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, your fifth post here was to complain that an editor who had made three posts was bludgeoning.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Your math is a little off, this would be my fifth post since the opening. You had six prior to my last post. Stating that you dispute every single comment that everyone makes here really is not the way to go. --Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my math, I just checked it.  Do you want me to list the times of each edit so you can verify?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want, I'm not going to waste my time with this. You must have some special wikilawyer way of counting.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikilawyer counting?  I'm wondering if that might be like if someone on their sixth post said, "this would be my fifth post since the opening": i.e., 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That no more than one or two people with editorial obits in the NYT from the 20th century is not opinion. It's a fact, to the best of my knowledge. (If I'm wrong, it can be disproven) That we should continue doing what we have almost always done -- that's an opinion. I think it's a more reasonable opinion than that we should ignore what we have almost always done. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete--I do not concur that obit(s) in sig. sources lends auto-notability.Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: Just not notable and fails WP:POLITICIAN. It is a "big push" that being listed in a NYT obit (or AP obit) confers, or is even "a strong indicator", of notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Cumberlands–Union football rivalry

Cumberlands–Union football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Same editor. No independent RS to establish notability. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete sources provided in the article are unimpressive for WP:GNG. Looks like some rich history, so if sources can be drummed up I'd switch my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Additional sources look better. Still room for expansion, but a good start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment  The statement of the nomination that The Times-Tribune (Corbin), News Journal (Kentucky), and WYMT-TV are not independent is erroneous, as independence is a matter of journalist ethics.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Were added after nom. [15] UW Dawgs (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep  In the article, we have independent coverage from three media sources.  One is a daily newspaper in Corbin, one is a weekly newspaper in Corbin, and one is a TV station in Hazard.  The weekly newspaper article is authored by a staff writer, the daily newspaper uses an article written by Union College's Director of Sports Communications and is marked "© Copyright 2018 thetimestribune.com", and the TV station article suggests indirectly that the article "reflect[s] the views of this station".  These sources all strongly confirm the credible idea that two small colleges in Southeast Kentucky have a football rivalry, one that dates back to 1905, and that the Brass Lantern is the symbol of the rivalry.  Evidence includes the headline writer who wrote, "Patriots rally to win coveted Brass Lantern".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment  The timestribune article reports a rare way to score in football, "However, the PAT was missed and [a] Cumberlands’ [player] picked up the loose ball, returning it 100 yards for a 2-point, defensive PAT..."  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - I googled the trophy and the rivalry, and can't find anything besides school coverage, and single game coverage - certainly nothing beyond local coverage. There's no significant coverage on the rivalry, thus failing WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• What is your definition of GNG's local coverage?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 03:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, if something is notable enough for inclusion, there's media coverage outside of the local area. Otherwise, the rivalry is of just local interest. It's not the best comparison, but look at how something like Army Navy gets strong national coverage every year. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete- It would take a lot to make a rivalry between NAIA schools notable, we're not talking about top-tier athletic programs. I just can't see this being any more notable than the local high school rivalry game.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Question why would it take "more" for a smaller school rivalry than a larger school? Shouldn't it be "the same" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". The independent sources identified so far basically take about a recent game, with little background on the overall significance. Without more, editors will have little choice but to do WP:OR of sorts to cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games. "Local coverage" is not as issue for me; it's the limited number of independent sources. A rivalry from say California or Texas would likely generate more in-state, independent coverage than a series from Idaho.—Bagumba (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient significant coverage has been presented to pass WP:GNG. This is a rivalry among two NAIA teams, i.e., teams that play at the lowest level of college football (below NCAA Divisions I (FBS and FCS), II, and III. Moreover, the coverage is minimal and hyper-local -- small town coverage in Hazard and Corbin -- and not even much of that. If the rivalry were significant, one would expect at a minimum to see coverage in the major Kentucky or Tennessee newspapers like The Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald-Leader, Knoxville News Sentinel, or The Tennessean. If additional significant coverage were to be found, I'd be willing to take another look. Cbl62 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Cbl62 has presented multiple independent sources that discuss the rivalry; the SNG WP:NRIVALRY defers to GNG. There's no requirement that there be coverage from sources outside the state of Idaho, which is the main delete argument presented. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Idaho–Idaho State football rivalry

Idaho–Idaho State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another creation of same editor. No independent citations to establish a rivalry, just marketing from official sites and game results. Establishment of games results alone from a series is not sufficient for WP:GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Independent source added 12/30/17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Byline is "By ISU Sports Information Sep 6, 2017" [16]; So is not independent and still fails WP:GNG (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.). UW Dawgs (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Several objective indicia of a rivalry are present, including geographic proximity (this is an intra-state rivalry); an official name for the series ("Battle of the Domes", see here); a traveling trophy (see here); history dating back to 1916; and frequency of play (played regularly from 1962-1998, less frequently before and after, but set to be renewed starting in 2018). Also, there is some coverage of the series as a rivalry, including (1) this from 1967 ("renewing for the seventh time a rivalry that was born back in 1916"); (2) this from 1975 ("the ISU-Idaho rivalry has an emotional history"); (3) this from 1976 ("Vandals, Bengals Stoke Fires in Time-Tested Rivalry"); (4) this from 2017 ("Bengals, Vandals to begin Battle of the Domes yearly rivalry series"); and (5) this from 2017 ("Bengals and Vandals Unveil New Rivalry Series, 'Battle of the Domes'"). Not a slam dunk but overall, I think there's enough to pass the WP:GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I see Idaho State Journal and Idaho Free Press as independent sources that mention the rivalry. The others you listed are non-independent.—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The first four items are from those independent sources. The fifth may or may not be independent, but is significant for its discussion of the renewal of the rivalry with a conscious effort to brand and market it under the name "Battle of the Domes". Even if the fifth is not independent, we still have significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, thus enough to pass WP:GNG. Clearly not a slam dunk but enough. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep in-state rivalries of state schools are almost always notable. This is somewhat unique that Idaho State is FCS and Idaho is FBS... but the history still holds up. Notability cannot be lost.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - if the rivalry was notable beyond a local level, there would be coverage outside of Idaho. My rule of thumb is that without broader coverage, the case can't be made that this rivalry is anything more than of local interest. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 03:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete- I can't see this being of interest to anyone outside of Idaho. Coverage doesn't appear to make this a significant rivalry.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Whether it has attracted coverage outside of the local area is irrelevant - that's not how we judge the notability of articles. Here, there appear to be multiple RS third-party newspapers within the state of Idaho that have covered this series as a rivalry over a 50-year period. And, that's enough to meet GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. "Local coverage" is not as issue for me; its the limited number of independent sources. A rivalry from say California or Texas would likely generate more in-state, independent coverage than a series from Idaho.—Bagumba (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the sources listed above, additional sources are found at Newslibrary.com. These include: (6) "The Rivalry? New players, coaches and a 1", Post Register (Idaho Falls, ID), September 11, 1997 ("There will be no bonfires, no mayoral bets, no side of ham that might be Fed-Exed from the Gate City to Moscow, or vice versa. Ask Idaho State coach Tom Walsh about the Idaho/Idaho State football rivalry, which plays for the 35th time at 4:05 p.m. Saturday, and he's too busy thumping the tub for a win, any win, to worry only about the black and yellow Vandals."); (7) "Return of the Vandals", Post Register, April 4, 1997 ("It took some finagling, but Idaho State Athletic Director Irv Cross and Idaho Athletic Director Oval Jaynes have rebuilt one of the state's best football rivalries."). We now have significant coverage of the rivalry in at least three independent, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Digging through Newspaperarchive.com, there are actually dozens more articles discussing this series as a traditional rivalry. Here are a few more examples: (8) Bengals Host Vandals In Big 'Game of the Year', Idaho State Journal, Nov. 11, 1963 ("The moment of truth comes next Saturday for fans of Idaho and Idaho State when the two football powers clash at Pocatello in what is fast becoming a major in-state rivalry."); (9) Bengals Seek to Break Vandals Hex in Big Sky Football Opener, Idaho State Journal, Sep. 26, 1969 ("Idaho State will be meeting its biggest rival in football Saturday, the Idaho Vandals ... grudge match ..."); (10) Idaho State Too Much for Vandals, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, Oct. 4, 1970 ("The traditional rivalry, played before a capacity crowd at the ISU Minidome in Pocatello ..."); (11) ISU-Idaho is old home week, Idaho Free Press, Oct. 4, 1974 ("It's a traditional rivalry ..."); (12) Idaho-ISU game is Big Sky feature, Great Falls Tribune, Oct. 26, 1985 ("There's no question it's the biggest game of the year." ... It's an in-state rivalry ..."); (13) Idaho-ISU Grid Rivalry Fails to Stir Bengals, Idaho State Journal, Oct. 7, 1977 ("Ah, rivals. There's nothing quite like them. Take the Idaho State Bengals and their annual donnybrook with the Idaho Vandals ..."); (14) Emotions high in Idaho-ISU battle, The Idaho Free Press, Sept. 25, 1975 ("Idaho and Idaho State renew the oldest intra-state college football rivalry in Idaho ..."); (15) On the Sidelines, Idaho State Journal, Nov 7, 1965 (referring to ISU-Idaho as "the arch-rivalry"). Sources from the 1980s and 1990s have been hard to find, as the key Idaho newspapers do not appear on Newspapers.com for those decades, but we now have at least six independent sources dealing with the series as a traditional rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Rahul Kumar Kamboj

Rahul Kumar Kamboj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An advertorially toned BLP on a nn politician and member of a city council. Significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources, which include passing mentions, blogs, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:NPOL; the only interesting aspect of the subject's career is that he's the first politician of Indian descent elected to the council in question. However, I don't believe that this rises to the level of encyclopedic notability. Created by Special:Contributions/Farhanramzan123 currently indef blocked as part of a sock farm; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hamzaramzan123. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Kumar is well known in the Indian community Germany for his social and political achievements. He is also the first Counsillor in the history of Indian Diaspora. In Germany his Surname is only Kumar not Kamboj. For seachresults in other Databases look for "Rahul Kumar Kelsterbach". I think its not fair to delete, request for more time. Other examples Raveesh Kumar, Anant Kumar, Gujjula Ravindra Reddy. GoPro (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — GoPro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Page created on 18 December 2017‎. Many other users also accept the relevance of this Page like myself. Its the first time that an Overseas Citizenship of India is elected as Official state Member in Germany. Its a proud moment for India with more then 1.339.180.000 Citizens. The relavence is available.(Find Sources: Google News, Google Search, HightBeam, the pioneer 5.146.101.88 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable politician and purely advert. Fails WP:NPOL. Hagennos (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note WP:NPOL; Nevertheless Point Nr. 2 fit here. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". First Indian and also the youngest ever as Counsillor. 2003:C5:F1A:E10B:95DB:1696:14D0:7B8F (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• save page I believe the relevance is present. Have a look to the German Press reports. DGIM (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — DGIM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Correction I am (de-German) User since 2007 and also made many fixes on other pages. DGIM (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with GoPro; example Raveesh Kumar is also present here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:178:7B80:69C5:71BB:9FBC:52A4 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Relevance accepted In Germany Counsillor (Stadtrat) is equal to vice Mayor. Approximately 700.000 People living in Frankfurt and 20.000 in Kelsterbach near the international Airport (FRA). Kumar is district level FDP Board Member of state (Kreis) Gross-Gerau with more then 260.000 citizens. At this time he is the youngest (with Indian background) president of the Social Association VdK Kelsterbach in the histroy and entire federal territory. The non-profit organization counts around 1.8 million members throughout Germany. In short time (from 2016) he achieved much recognition from German and Indian community. Its just demotivating to delete this efforts. I think to provide more time to updte the articel is a motivating way. 84.188.133.129 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete- I don't know much about German politics, but this guy is basically a city councilman, right? If so, he clearly would not pass WP:NPOL--Rusf10 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment Basically you maybe right but 1. he is the first Indian 2. he also district level politician 3. he is the first and yougest president of Social Orgabisation VDK; according to WP:NPOL he received much popularity in the Indian and German News/Press. To say or fix just only a city politician is wrong. DGIM (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nom's comment -- the subject being the first to achieve this position does not matter if the sources do not amount to WP:SIGCOV. At the end of the day, the article has been created by a promotional sock farm in violation of TOU and should be deleted per WP:DENY. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Concur with nom.Winged Blades^Godric 06:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete "First person from **insert country** to hold the position of **insert role in local politics**" does not equate to notability. Furthermore, the article was created by a sock. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ioannis Vatatzeia

Ioannis Vatatzeia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per previous PROD, and my comments at an identical draft. This article is an egregious case of WP:OR. It mixes up a number of things---the (real) religious veneration of Vatatzes, as indicated in his article; the celebration of festivals of pagan origin at his court in the 13th century; a modern festival organized by the local see of Didymoteicho; spurious claims that this was celebrated by Greek emigrants to the US (no mention of such in the sources provided); and a completely invented name , "Ioannis Vatatzeia", that does not and could not exist in Greek, as it is completely ungrammatical---all tenuously related, and suggests a coherent narrative where there is none. The same information is already contained in the article on Vatatzes, in a more factual context. The accounts associated with these articles (User:LilaDelany and lately User:Yiayiasonny) are also suspect, as they appear to be typical WP:SPA. Constantine ✍ 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment True, the title is absurd; makes no sense in Greek, as already observed. It is not "Iωάννης Βατάτζεια" (Ioannis Vatatzeia), but just "Βατάτζεια" (Vatatzeia), meaning in Greek "about/in honor of Vatatzis". His name "Iωάννης" (Ioannis) cannot be added to "Βατάτζεια" (Vatatzeia), this is not proper Greek; cf this article about "Βατάτζεια 2015" @ ThakiToday.com. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I note that a SPI has found that all accounts involved in the articles linked to this topic and promoting this topic are the socks. This speaks as to the reliability and intentions of the article creator(s). If this ends in deletion, Draft:Ioannis Vatatzeia Draft should be included as well. Constantine ✍ 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. It already exists the well documented article John III Doukas Vatatzes on him, where there is a "Legacy" section as well, including information about those who looked back upon him as "the Father of the Greeks", and his feast day at Didymoteicho. ——Chalk19 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lars Olav Karlsen

Lars Olav Karlsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article has been around for a long time, but the subject's notability has not been lasting, more like one-eventish stemming from his participation on a reality show. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Is this the president of the Oljeberget, the Norwegian national football team supporters club? He seems get in the news regularly if it's all the same Lars Olav Karlsen. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: reality show contestant, works as a guide at the football museum at Ullevaal Stadion, but searches for sources suggest he does not meet WP:BASIC. Delete per policy. Sam Sailor 00:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Probably a BLPProd in its current state with IMDB being the only source. Fenix down (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

John L. Reese

John L. Reese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:Notability, self-promotion, and lack of reliable sources. The article is almost entirely written by what appears to be the subject himself, although he hasn't disclosed this. Surachit (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The article is clearly promotional and a possible WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY with only two sources, both of which offer only fleeting mentions and one of which is of questionable reliability. As per John Pack Lambert, WP is not LinkedIn. Chetsford (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete found this [17] where he organised some music festival and charity show in California; however it does not meet WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Libertarian Nationalism

Libertarian Nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article appears to be about a made-up subject. There is no evidence "Libertarian Nationalism" has academic recognition as an actual topic. Sources used appear to be blogs. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I was about to nominate it for AfD myself but FreeKnowledgeCreator beat me to it. The topic fails to meet WP:GNG. I went through the article's sources and the article is primarily an aggregation of content from non-reliable sources, opinion pieces or sources that aren't actually about the article topic but contain the words "libertarian" and "nationalism" somewhere in the text. I also tried to find sources myself and did not find any. OK, let's go through the sources cited one at a time:
  • zerothposition.com - Not a reliable source.
  • beinglibertarian.com - Not a reliable source.
  • dbknews.com - Opinion piece from student newspaper. Although the words "libertarian" and "nationalism" are found in the op-ed, it's not actually about "libertarian nationalism".
  • washingtonpost.com - Again, it contains the words "libertarian" and "nationalist" but nothing about "libertarian nationalism".
  • mises.org - Not a reliable source.
  • anarchistnotebook.com Not a reliable source.
  • radicalcapitalist.org - Not a reliable source.
  • merionwest.com - Opinion piece from a questionable source. It contains the words "libertarian" and "nationalist" but not about "libertarian nationalism" except perhaps passing mention in one sentence.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly "speedy" -- WP:OR & WP:ADVOCACY, as in: "...a subset of the political far-right and libertarian party who are proud of their roots and of their heritage", stated in Wikipedia voice. Analysis of sources above is compelling to illustrate that this article is inapproproate synthesis on a nn topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Removed sources marked questionable and posted additional sources.

Dpezzin (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This seems to be a fairly glaring case of WP:OR. The sources (those that are RS, anyway) fail to describe this in anything other than a type of convenience description. Chetsford (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Apart from OR, this seems to be a POV fork of libertarian conservatism. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Lucille Fuchs

Lucille Fuchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:PROF. A search for secondary sources to support notability was not fruitful. Many of the links in the article link to the landing pages of major websites, where nothing is written about this person. None of this author's published works appear notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

please consider that she could be sorted by the name "Lucy Fuchs" for instance: on Google Scholar Holzywood (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete total and complete failure of meeting academic notability guidelines. The Google scholar link provides nothing even close to enough citations to suggest we might have someone with notable impact in a discipline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree...seems to be archetypical "average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Please consider the multiple aspects of the persona, not only the academic background Holzywood (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies, but "multiple aspects of the persona" doesn't mean anything in the context of this discussion. A motion has been made to delete this article based on lack of notability. The article will only be kept if this concern can be addressed. Agricola44 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't seem to meet academic notability or general notability or any particular other guideline. To the extent that "multiple aspects of the persona" has a meaning, it would be to use multiple notability guidelines. Does the proponent wish to offer one that we have overlooked? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Charitable of you, but that's not what it means. It is special pleading and what it basically means is "I know this person is not notable, but she's really great and deserves an article on WP, so please insert special plea here". There are gajillions of these "fanpage"-type articles on WP and they're appearing faster all the time. Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The author/proponent is a single-purpose account. Are they a family member, or being paid by the subject? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nope boss. Just a fan Holzywood (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. While the article as it stood when nominated may have failed WP:GNG at face value, the current version clearly passes all notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Lynette Horsburgh

Lynette Horsburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability as per WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG, no significant coverage of subject. Montgomery15 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete working for the BBC to produce web-content is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's not be silly. Being a sport world champion certainly is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced fanpage with no convincing claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - As noted there is nothing to suggest notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Do WP:BEFORE, properly. Anyone who !voted to delete this should recuse from AfD until they figure out how it actually works. It took less than ten seconds to find sufficient sourcing to prove notability, and the article already had enough before I did so, including RS for being a world champion! It took a few hours to completely overhaul the article, but worth the effort. This is not just a national champion in a sport (snooker), but a world champion in another (eightball pool), as well as a world champion runner-up in both snooker and English billiards. Not only that, she beat the eight-time reigning world champion for the world pool title, and the woman who would become the ten-time, record-breaking world champion after her for the national snooker one. Utterly remarkable for a non-full-time player. It's like being thrown into a cage with a tiger and a lion, armed with a pocket knife and emerging with two pelts and no serious wounds. PS: the national snooker victory came after she'd already give up pro snooker aspirations for pool. She won it as a afterthought, and just blew off the world championship because it didn't fit her BBC work schedule, despite having made it to the semi-finals last time. Badass.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: UK Ladies champion, as stated in the original source, and now seriously expanded to demonstrate unquestionable notability. PamD 09:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-sourced and passes WP:GNG by miles: not even remotely borderline. I have to wonder if the three offhand delete votes above are even reading the same article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Did not see the article before it was expanded, but this is yet another case of WP:BEFORE. Now it passes WP:GNG by a country mile. Edwardx (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of sourcing. Am I the only one who notices the irony that Wikipedia is littered with one-line drive-by stubs, but a little starter well-done like this one gets slapped with AFD? — Maile (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Done the search and sources are out there. Pass nobility criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Digital agency

Digital agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Probable WP:NOTDICTIONARY violation that serves as a helpful magnet for spam and advertising. !dave 19:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Dictionary definition written in marketspeak. Lacks substantial RS coverage. No encyclopedic content. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Sebastian Bach. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bach 2: Basics

Bach 2: Basics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing to suggest this album is notable. Mattg82 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sebastian Bach. Seems an uncontroversial redirect, albums are commonly redirected if not independently notable. AfD isn't needed unless the redirect is reverted. --Michig (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Blaine Vess

Blaine Vess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur associated with nn entities or not holding positions of note. Significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, interviews, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. The section on "Philanthropy" is puffery including a statement about the subject holding a fundraiser at his house (that is not philanthropy). Likewise, the details of being a producer are misleading; in one example, the subject is listed as one of 12 or so producers on the film. Etc. Created by Special:Contributions/Mocmarc as part of an apparent promotional walled garden around the company StudyMode and its products. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin, or at least is not supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Amandine Ohayon

Amandine Ohayon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable CEO who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Coverage of the subject is almost exclusive to Ohayon being named as the CEO of Pronovias, or with her announcing products when she worked for L'Oreal. Note that the article subject does not inherit the notability of the products she marketed nor the brands she worked for per WP:NOTINHERITED. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable CEO. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete no real notability claim. Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Craig Riley

Craig Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability beyond local media coverage; the creator of the page appears to have registered solely to create and edit this article and has not made any other contributions, so is most likely either a personal connection or the person themselves. Going by Wikiproject Cue sports/Notability, 'Regional am and pro-am players, and national ones that have yet to take a first prize, are almost certainly not notable enough (in their career so far) to warrant an article'. This person has competed only in regional tournaments, and the article contains multiple links to their own personal website and YouTube channel, without any significant coverage to suggest they warrant an article here. Montgomery15 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete not enough reliable source coverage to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

WebSocketRPC

WebSocketRPC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created and de-prodded by the software's author. No indication of significance. Rentier (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - No indication of notability. Can't find any sources to support an article on the topic. Ajpolino (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable sources establishing notability. Meatsgains (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Alipurduar II (community development block). MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

List College at Alipurduar-II Block

List College at Alipurduar-II Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Topic fails WP:GNG; a collection of red links. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• That something is presently a redlink has no bearing on whether it should actually have an article. Here I'm not even clear on what the topic is, or is supposed to be, or what this is trying to list. You determined that notability is not satisfied here, maybe if you walked us through how you determined that...? postdlf (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not expanding my rationale. These are 4 institutions in the community development block of Alipurduar II. I have no prejudice against listing colleges in any city/district in the world; however, does a list like this really comply with the general notability guidelines for lists, since the topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? When their names can simply be stated in the Alipurduar II (community development block) article since we are only talking about 4 of them without expanding at all?(also, I am not sure these are exactly their names, since Google tells me another story [[18]] [[19]]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RetiredDuke (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • You may be right about the outcome, but I want to make sure we get there through the right analysis. LISTN can be sufficient but not necessary to satisfy notability guidelines. More relevant questions here would look at whether we're listing entries that merit their own articles, and then whether there are enough of them to merit a standalone navigational list as a WP:SPLIT from a parent article. If the answer to either question is no (as would seem to be the case here) then listing them in the parent location article would probably be the way to go. Merging per WP:ATD is not really a deletion issue but rather just one for editing (though here the title of this list would not make a proper redirect), and all of this should really be figured out through a discussion and looking at the whole context of related content, rather than a "keep/delete per WP:SOMEACRONYM" compulsory process. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to Alipurduar II (community development block). This article seems to be a set with List of Upper Primary Schools at Alipurduar-II Block and List of Primary Schools at Alipurduar-II Block (maybe they should be considered in this AfD as well?) I'd suggest they all be merged back to Alipurduar II (community development block). Ajpolino (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Those two articles are only slightly less useless. Also there is nothing useful at all to merge from this one. Ajf773 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Bordering A1 material. Difficult to understand the context of this article (which appears to be a list article of red-links so it doesn't pass WP:LISTN anyhow). Ajf773 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "...appears to be a list article of red-links so it doesn't pass WP:LISTN anyhow": that's a complete non sequitur. The one has nothing to do with the other. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I've also nominated the two articles mentioned by Ajpolino. MT Train^Discuss 09:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Position of the media on the Armenian Genocide

Position of the media on the Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is almost entirely original research. Most citations are to primary sources, instead of to secondary sources that analyze the primary sources. Billhpike (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - this is WP:OR - and even pretty poor OR. Sourced to PRIMARY opinion pieces (and a TV review) - not all of which indicate that the media organization supports the opinion it published. No clear secondary coverage of the topic - which makes notability unclear (is the position of the media on the Armenian genocide a topic of interest?). The article also seems POVish in that it tries to promote a false-balance on a subject in which there is little balance - sources outside of Turkey mostly unequivocally state genocide - the exception being politicians who attempt to keep diplomatic relations cool.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• WEak keep -- A primary source is commonly the best source. The Armenian genocide is clearly a notable topic, but one on which the Turkish government is in denial. The position taken by media on this strikes me as a notable topic. It may be that there is also some academic work on the topic, which ought to be included. This is certainly not a good article, but not so bad as to need TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It has very little coverage but I don't think it should be eliminated. Harut111 (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete- It really is not a notable topic. Something could be written in the Armenian Genocide about how the Turkish media denies it, but I really don't see the value of trying to compile a record of how every news agency in the world reports on it. It is also very subjective whether or not a particular news agency is neutral on the issue or not. I also question whether Press coverage during the Armenian Genocide is really a necessary list article.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to track bias in the media in this way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I also agree that it's probably original research to try to tell a newspaper's editorial position from individual news stories. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- Does not meet WP:LISTN. Original research and inappropriate synthesis. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Charlie Mack

Charlie Mack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. I couldn't find significant coverage of him to satisfy a BLP. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Subject lacks notability. Only coverage in reliable sources are for a different Charlie Mack. Meatsgains (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete no coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Generally, when content is merged into another article, the original article is redirected to the destination article, which is an action that does not require a deletion discussion. As no editor here has advanced a well-substantiated argument for deletion, I see "keep" as the outcome. Mz7 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Juggalo March

Juggalo March (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't warrant it's own article, info should be merged into main ICP article. RF23 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is incumbent on the proposer to name a notability criterion and why the article fails. E.g. could you explain why WP:NEVENT is not met, "having widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources"? We have in this article several items from the national newspaper of record and the premier national politicsl events newspaper, plus a national television network, so it seems to me to qualify. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). The Juggalo March was held on the same day as the Mother of All Rallies, and both received significant press coverage. There are many sources that could be used to expand the current article, which should mention the march's purpose (to protest the FBI's classification of Juggalos as a gang), activities, planning, the number of attendees, etc. One can easily establish notability simply by searching "Juggalo March" at Google News. Even if this topic weren't eligible for a standalone entry, a redirect or merge would be more appropriate than deleting altogether. With a bit of background info, logistical details, and commentary, this article could easily make a great addition to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The article may need mention in the Insane Clown Posse article but the present article goes into much more depth (and has the sources for it) than would be possible as part of a larger article. I see no need for the merge and a likely detriment. The event seems notable in its own right. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Include information in main Juggalo pageMartinlc (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting there is not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, or do you have a general preference for merging content? If you could provide a rationale, that'd be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I think there is room in the main ICP article for a single event of this sort.Martinlc (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Associazione Amici della Musica (Alcamo)

Associazione Amici della Musica (Alcamo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable music association of purely local significance in a small city. No mainstream independent coverage. Fails WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per the nomination. I can find absolutely no significant independent coverage of this local organization. There are a few press release-based concert announcements and announcements about the prizes they award in the local press, and that's it. Neither the singing competition nor their annual "cultural prize" are notable on a national level, and are only covered locally, if at all. There is already more than adequate and proportionate coverage for this local society already existing at Alcamo#Music. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello. I have bettered the page, by inserting new neutral sources and other information. You can check it. Pugliesig (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

But, maybe, you did not look at it again! Pugliesig (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DGG, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Mary Farhill

Mary Farhill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparently not notable by our standards. She was wealthy, gave some money to poor people, lived for thirty years in a notable house near Fiesole and was made an honorary citizen, died and was buried. None of that seems to be of encyclopaedic interest or significance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, unless there is some policy-based reason for deletion. The nomination consists solely of the nominator's personal view on the significance of Farhill's life, but no indication whatsover of how she is alleged to fail WP:N or WP:BIO, or what WP:BEFORE the nominator did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, lack of notability is a policy-based reason for deletion. I have no view of this person's life other than what little I have been able to find documented in reliable sources (which do not include this one, somebody's website). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

again careful, that is not "someone website", that is the website of the City of Florence and includes the notes the people who are maintaining the English Cemetery were able to find about the English people buried in the cemetery. Anyway a source of 1854 said "1854 'Miss Farhill found drowned in her bath yesterday evening. 70 yrs old, no-one knows who her relations are, has lived at Villa Boccaccio half her life." Villa Boccaccio seems to lead to "Villa Palmieri" but then a contemporary source says the villa is the one were Vernon Lee lived, and Vernon Lee lived at "Villa Il Palmerino" (website of the Villa: [20])... Therefore again, quite confusing...Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: there are several policy-based tests of notability. Your nomination did not mention any of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Coverage I could find was largely mentions in pieces about the villa ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25]) and don't seem to say much more than when she bought it and who she left it to on her death. Perhaps we should selectively merge this to Villa Palmieri, Fiesole --Michig (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: careful, it's not the same villa. Villa Il Palmerino‎ is the villa of Fairhill. I created the article, and requested the speedy deletion of Mary Fairhill. I will then redirect it to the Villa Il Palmerino‎ Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• The sources I found refer to Villa Palmieri - are the sources confused? --Michig (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Did she own, the villa that was in the The Decameron. It is, the Villa Palmieri, Fiesole. That would perhaps count towards summat. scope_creep (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment She seemed to be ennobled or very close to it, in terms of working with, friend, or pssibly in that group. Swinging to notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Michig, Scope creep, as Elisa.rolle has already pointed out above, Villa Il Palmerino where Farhill lived, later the home of Violet Paget, is apparently not Villa Palmieri (also known as Villa Boccaccio), visited by Dumas, owned by George Clavering-Cowper and later by one of the Earls of Crawford (the 25th apparently died in Florence, so would be a good candidate). I say "apparently" because of the degree of confusion in various sources (including this one), and the notable absence of reliable sources in our articles, both in en.wp and it.wp. Both villas are on the hills below Fiesole; Villa Palmieri is in via Boccaccio, close to San Domenico, while Il Palmerino is in via del Palmerino, a little further east and closer to Settignano. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment, indeed it's quite confusing, but the source (in Italian) for Villa Il Palmerino says "A partire dal 1855 fu nelle disponibilità dei Frati di S.Croce come convento", since 1855 (one year later than her death), the Villa Il Palmerino was used as a convent... considering she had become a sort of nun, it's likely that is the right house. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment No cigar, I saw the comments but wanted to test the assertion.scope_creep (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom Buffington

Tom Buffington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by a blocked SPA, tagged for COI and lack of notability since 2009. Completely reliant on primary sources; a WP:BEFORE could not find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks any independent coverage in reliable sources. Page's current references are poor. Meatsgains (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

List of prolific singers

List of prolific singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was mentioned by MT Train at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prolific songwriters. I see that this list has the same issues (WP:GEOBIAS to India, arbitrary inclusion criterion of >100 songs, lack of sources) and was created by the same author, মাখামাখি (talk · contribs). LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: Another arbitrary and biased article. MT Train^Discuss 12:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitrary inclusion criteria. Recording 100 songs isn't an unusual achievement. An average CD has about 12 tracks, so anyone who's recorded more than around 8 CDs or LPs would qualify. Also, the 'Top 15' section appears to be WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (In an extreme example, Anal Cunt released a single EP in 1990 with 5643 (very short) songs. They appear to be missing from the Top 15.) Pburka (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and for same reasoning as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prolific songwriters. The title including the word prolific is a dead giveaway. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above and the other AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete This is worse than the list of prolific song-writers. This is a nightmare waiting to happen on all fronts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment After review, I have realized that this is a worse list than I initially thought. To begin with, for example Alex Boye, do we count the songs he sang with a British boy band, and with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, or do we just count productions he did as a solo vocalist. Is this recording of 100 different songs, or is it 100 recordings, so if one singer recorded the same song a lot of times, they can get to the list. Recording should include the act of making a song for a film, and each song for the film should be counted seperately. This makes me suspect that people like Nelson Eddy go here. However it also makes me ponder the implications of so many early films being lost. I also dislike the fact that this seems to suggest that only post-1900 singers can have been prolific, and that opera singers from before that are not in any way prolific.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. I could not say it much better than JPL above: it's a nightmare on all fronts. Most of these number of recordings are unsourced, dogs know where they were copy-pasted from, and they will either remain unsourced or be a constant cause for debate as sources for good reasons often don't match on the exact number of recordings by an article. WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, the effort may have been in totally good faith, but delete per WP:DEL14. Sam Sailor 10:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Big Wolf Marketing

Big Wolf Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in secondary sources found. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per User:RetiredDuke's rationale. The company doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. It also seems like it may have been created as a thinly veiled attempt to name and shame a not notable individual. Chetsford (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Terence D'Souza

Terence D'Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable as their is nothing in WP:RS. Almost sourced with primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - I fear that he is only a NN parish priest. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete not enough sources to show notability. The Vicar General is a bit higher than a parish priest, but not high enough for default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Vicar generals who have not been consecrated bishops are not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Charles

Arthur Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Almost sourced by primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- Not significant enough to be notable, in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete his academic roles do not rise to the level of notability, his religious positions are not such to ggrant automatic notability, and the sourcing is not there to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Morris Jalal

Morris Jalal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- NN. My only doubt related to CAtholic TV, but that is a low-power local station covering one city. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Catholic TV basically is Jalal carrying a video camera with him as he makes his ministerial rounds, this is not the thing notability is made of. I have grave doubts that the TV "station" is notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: You are right. Pakistan don't allow minorities religious channels. For instance, see [26] from Express Tribune. Störm (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. bd2412 T 01:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Workplace relationships

Workplace relationships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page is just an aimless discursive essay Amisom (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, I can't make out any encyclopedic discussion of the topic. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep encyclopediac, and well referenced and not an essay or unencyclopediac, a basic element in understanding why and how organised labour and management systems either exploit or enhance such relationships. JarrahTree 23:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  Just because it's well referenced doesn't mean it's not an essay (eg this). But phrases like, "Workplace relationships directly affect a worker's ability and drive to succeed", "Unfortunately, conflicts can arise due to the lack of, or the absence of, common goals for the business" etc make clear that this article constitutes the author's opinion on a general theme. It is not a notable, encyclopedic topic. Amisom (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• sorry but there is a whole category tree relative to workplace issues - and this is a fundamental part of the template and category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Workplace, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Aspects_of_workplaces --JarrahTree 10:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  Luckily we can edit that template and that category to remove it then. WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Amisom (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry again - AFD discussions go beyond 2 editors having a conversation... JarrahTree 10:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  I don't know what that means. Amisom (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• OK, lets try - PROD's work when either the original editor, or a substantial adder to an article - have the article on their watch list. The starter of the article stopped editing in 2011, and despite a whole range of editors doing things to the article - viz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workplace_relationships&action=history I would suggest that editors on that list who have edited in the more recent years might be interested, but they might not have it on their watch list...
  AFD's work when more than two editors have a conversation about the merits of an article against the AFD criterion - never a 2 person job, or 3 - the more the merrier for more a wider point of view.
  Your prod was reverted - I can see some eminent high edit editors in the history list - I'd be patient, they may turn up... not counting chickens too quickly is always a good measure. If your arguments hold water they can float for a while, I am sure JarrahTree

  Yeah, I don't really know what you're talking about but this AfD has seven days to run so why don't you just chill and see what happens. Amisom (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  OK,if that is your response, are you really sure you should be venturing into AFD territory? JarrahTree 11:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yes.. Amisom (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Massive notability. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think WP:ITSNOTABLE is a helpful argment? Amisom (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep – Passes WP:GNG per a review of available sources. More sources are available in addition to those posted in my comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Procedural or otherwise, there is no consensus to delete. Nominator should note the comments regarding proposing merges. Michig (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Turing College, Kent

Turing College, Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a university dorm/hall of residence. Such parts of Universities arfe not notable for standalone articles. Delete or merge. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural keep If merging is an acceptable solution, then this shouldn't be at AfD. (I'd say this page has as much reason to exist as those on the other colleges at Kent — Eliot, Rutherford, Keynes, Darwin and Woolf. Perhaps they should all be merged to create Colleges of the University of Kent, since they're all fairly short, and the Colleges section of the main university article is longish.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I'm aware, Kent is a collegiate university, meaning that Turing College isn't simply a halls of residence. Describing it as such would be erroneous because students go to colleges for their classes etc. st170e 21:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with both the two comments above. All the Kent Colleges should be moved into a single article Colleges of the University of Kent as has occurred for a number of other universities. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

On further reflection I am coming down to Keep. The other two collegiate universities in UK of the same era as Kent - Lancaster and York - have articles for all of their colleges. The other Colleges of Kent have longer articles. This article should be expanded and kept. We need to keep some consistency for similar situations. The other College articles have been here for some time. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural keep  This is a sub-topic of Kent University, and I don't see an argument that DEL8 overcomes ATD, so should not be at AfD.  As per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, content discussions belong on the talk page of articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural keep I completely agree with Bduke as the University of Kent is semi-collegiate university, hence I created the page as other Colleges have their pages on Wikipedia. Also, college masters manage these colleges where Halls of Residences do not have this role as well as administrative offices. I do apologise if I have not followed any style of posting as I am new to this wikipedia edition. Cstheguy (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Procedural Keep. The actual consensus was in the favour of 'keeping' the article. Since the nominator is a sock, I am closing it as procedural. (non-admin closure)  samee  ^talk 09:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Krishi Thapanda

Krishi Thapanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP. Provided source not proves notability. -- HindWiki^Connect 05:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC) -- HindWiki^Connect 05:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 16:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy keep read [27][28][29] meets WP:GNG. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  The first and third are mostly non-independent, having 3-5 sentences not by Thapanda. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment- found these articles [30][31] Thsmi002 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. References provided to support keep are all primary sources sourced to the individual covered in the page or are passing references in an article. Hagennos (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:NACTOR with two prominent roles in notable films, has some rs Atlantic306 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Several starring roles in notable films. --Michig (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Most of the news coverage seems to be because of "Bigg Boss Kannada", but the subject has marginal coverage in general. Even though barely, passes WP:NACTOR. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

AnonCoders

AnonCoders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, used to have massive COI material, which was removed, someone put on a PROD, which was removed by anon IP, so I am nominating at AFD Elektricity (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Lack of lasting coverage. Most of the (not so much) coverage that is out there is limited to a few months in 2015.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Coverage is coverage, even if limited to a few months. The coverage isn't about a single event either. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  Um, no, it doesn't. The significant coverage is there. The question is whether coverage published during a short period of time makes a difference. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - coverage is indeed coverage even if as obvious limited to a couple of months. BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• comment I've searched again and have not found anything beyond the brief flurry of local/regional coverage of this then-new organization in 2015 that is already on the page. Unless someone can find something more, it fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  The coverage spans multiple regions (albeit in Kentucky), it isn't local, and the coverage is significant, by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That is the very definition of WP:SIGCOV. The time period during which the coverage occurs isn't relevant. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  Beg to differ per WP:SUSTAINED. That the coverage of this group is limited to a few short months in 2015 and it is not even mentioned since is a clear sign of lack of notability.Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  It depends on whether you consider a few months sustained coverage. Also part of the same guideline: notability is not temporary. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Conrad Tillard

Conrad Tillard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable community activist. I didn't find any comprehensive sources that shows notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a New York Times profile, several others in major magazines, and he is in a couple of biographical dictionaries that I have been able to find (subsequent to the deletion notice). And he was apparently considered the heir apparent to Louis Farrakhan in the 1990s.--Pharos (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Conrad Tillard is listed in a whose who in African American leadership. He is in several films. He has been a Christian minister for some time. He joined the National of Islam when he was 19 and very impressionable.

Conrad Tillard Manheim, James M. (2005). Pendergast, Sara; Pendergast, Tom, eds. Contemporary Black Biography: Profiles from the International Black Community. 47. Detroit: Thomson Gale. ISBN 9781414405469 – via Encyclopedia.com.

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2005/02/beliefnet-whos-whothe-most-influential-black-spiritual-leaders.aspx?p=2

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I know nothing of him by bio-dictionaries are normally a criterion indicating notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep a profile in the NYTimes (regional edition) Keeping the Faith, Differently; A Harlem Firebrand Quietly Returns to Christianity. the first NYTimes story mention him was in 1988 (University of Pennsylvania) Pennsylvania Students Exercise Restraint on Farrakhan Visit this : " It's not about convincing, however, said Conrad Tillard, a black student and member of the Nation of Islam who helped organize the Farrakhan appearance. The restraint shown by whites, he said, represents a respect for our feelings and our wishes. As long as we can agree to disagree, that's the key. And that's what happened here.. Mr. Tillard and his group had considered the white response to the Farrakhan visit an acid test. On the basis of the response so far, he said, new progress on race relations is now possible. Threee other stores in NYTiems archives. 2011 Profile in the Amsterdam News Conrad Tillard - From hip hop minister to community reverend. WP:SIGCOV in books. Clearly a notable man.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Depth of coverage in published books (also under the name Conrad Muhammed) is enough to demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

List of remade Hindi songs

List of remade Hindi songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think that there is any encyclopedical value in this list Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete--Listcruft.Winged Blades^Godric 10:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: Remade songs are subject to a lot of media coverage in India, article is also well sourced. Passes WP:GNG.Pratyush (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There is a category for lists of cover versions or remakes: Category:Lists of cover songs however these are well defined with the criteria that the songs listed are originals by a specific artist. It gets messy when we start to include all songs written in the Hindi language or for the Bollywood film movement. Ajf773 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: As it is part of history and it will increase in near future. This article list telling us the information that we have to dig otherwise if it is not there. Topic is notable according to references mentioned, references belongs to the newspaper and media which is reliable. The the article is a part of Bollywood. According to the Wikipedia, if the media has a lots of coverage in the topic, then the article is considered okay to be included in Wikipedia and this article has been covered by media and newspaper. The article is not for WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE but to provide simple info about remade songs. Category is not a better ideas for that. We don't write all songs in this list, we only write songs which are remade. The arlicle/list is not a listcruft because we only write remade songs, the article/list is not saying that which song is best and which is bad, but article/list showing just info.These are the reasons to keep this article.Zafar24Talk 08:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per @Ajf773; there are no similar articles for other languages. Also, this page seems to focus exclusively on covers in films. At the very least, it should be moved to List of cover versions of Hindi songs per convention. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, the list is not needed, indiscriminate, represents only a small fraction of what exists (and appears to be selective even within its scope), and will grow forever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant. It's already covered in Category:Lists of cover songs. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The article is not to indiscriminate, it is informative which helps upcoming generations, it is a part of history, topic is searchable as everyone wants to know the new and old verson of Hindi songs. Since article name was not suitable so I moved the article to List of cover versions of Hindi songs. I don't agree with @Chiswick Chap; The list will not grow as only remade songs are included and only remade Hindi songs. @Yashthepunisher; said that it is redundant, Well it is not redundant and Category is not good for this type of list.Zafar24Talk 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

1) You can only !vote once, so I have struck your duplicate !vote above.

2) Clearly songs will continue to be remade, indefinitely, so continued growth can confidently be predicted, contrary to your claim above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, after much talking, nobody advocates retention of this unsourced stub, which read in its entirety: "Mkiriwadjumoi is a monastery located near the town of Moya on the island of Anjouan in the Comoros." Sandstein 13:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mkiriwadjumoi

Mkiriwadjumoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Though there are articles in Swedish and Cebuano, I didn't find any information beside weather data for this place Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Given there are tons of links on the web about it, I think it refers to a separate/autonomous community within the city where it is colocated.

I cannot assert this, but the name is commonly used. Could it that be a "local name" of the city, or a translation of the city name in some unspecified language?

If you prefer I suggest not deleting it but replacing it by a redirect to the city. But it's true that it has a separate geographic classification than a standard place and the encoding found in various databases indicates it is a religious place.

May be it's just a suburb in the city and the name is still accurate.

The "lack of reference" invoked is false, there are many on the web, but how to choose between them? They were indicated in the associated talk page, where this was questioned. And anyway we should also ask to Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedia users where they took their reference, as they had already created a reference for this in Wikidata. May be the external references cannot be found in English but in other languages.

Given the location, the local languages (Comorian, Arabic, French) should be used to search that name (which is most probably in Comorian/Mahorese, or one of its local variants, the Ndzwani (Anjouani) dialect). But I don't think it is a pure synonym (translated) of the city name and that it certainly has a religious meaning.

Note that Moya and Mkiriwadjumoi are clearly distinguished and separated in population census data by city (so these cannot be synonyms) !

And various published lists give these estimates (unfortunately without dates), sorted by decreasing population:

1. Moroni (42 872)
3. Moutsamoudou (23 594)
5. Fomboni (14 966)
7. Domoni (14 509)
9. Adda-Douéni (10 858)
11. Sima (10 374)
13. Ouani (10 179)
15. Mirontsi (10 168)
17. Mkiriwadjumoi (8 749)
19. Koni-Djodjo (8 109)
21. Moya (7 529)
23. ...

It's strange that a so important city (for the country) cannot be located separately from Moya, given its rank. I suspect that the effective geolocalisation may be in fact wrong or that people are confused by the local religious status (so there could as well be two communities recognized in the same territory, a civil one and a religion-affiliated one).

We should find locals in Anjouan to decipher this case, but we cannot decide anything here on this English-only Wikipedia alone.

And the list of sources you suggest at top of this page are definitely not accurate and not suitable at all for this area as they are purely in English and very focused to US readers). English is not used at all in Anjouan, Comoros.

If those on this English Wikipedia don't know anything about how to search sources in Arabic, Comorian or French, they should abstain to decide or vote anything as they ignore completely how to solve this case (the same applies to users on Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedia, but I think that Cebuano Wikipedia just copied/translated what was on Swedish Wikipedia with some bot). It would be interesting to look at the history of the article in Swedish Wikipedia and article in Cebuano Wikipedia to find the first occurence (it's possible that then many other sites on the web just started to create pages once both wikipedias were linked together via the addition of an entry Wikidata after it was translated to Cebuano). It's notable that both were created by the same import bot ("Lsjbot", developed by the Swedish physicist Sverker Johansson, and documented in Swedish, which got promoted for his work in WikiScience 2017) there in September-October 2016, but that the many external sites have existed since much longer time before in various weather/postal/population/tourism sites... (so Wikipedia is not the initial source of this name used since long).

verdy_p (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep It exists. Mkiriwadjumoi is a monastery which I can see on google maps. It is an important monastery with many people in it. It is located next to Moya, and it has a population of monks in it. The monks are not allowed out of their community so it is a separate community to the village next to it and is officially designated as its own community. I do not think your Lsjbot machine is very good because it seems to be confusing it with a normal city and can't seem to understand the concept of a monastic community. As verdy_p has already explained, being a different designated place to Moya, it is administered separately and has separate census data. I think this means it should be keep according to your policy that is called WP:GEOLAND. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V. Not a single reference provided either in the article or in this discussion, except a lot of hand-waving. The place is not findable on Google maps; all Google hits are nebulous geodatabase entries and their derivations. The coordinates in Swedish wiki (apparently a job of "nebuolus geodatabase entries") and in this article are in very center of the town of Moya, Comoros. If it's a "monastery", which denomination it is? According to Comoros#Religion, the population is 98% Muslim, and there aren't "monasteries" in Islam. A relatively comprehensive Government page about Anjouan fails to mention the purported town of 9000. It's an author's job to prove us with references that the place exists, and vague appeals do not constitute one. No such user (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I already explained you can see it on Google maps, it is the large building at 12°18′39.096″S 44°26′13.272″E. Despite what your machine says, it is not a town, it is a religious community in a monastery. The general statistics indicate there are 14,000 Christians in the Comoros, that said, I don't think it is possible to fit 9000 people in that monastery and I can't see where the census data comes from. verdy_p could you please tell us how to access official census data, it would help greatly to make the article acceptable according to the WP:V policy. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ilyina Olya Yakovna: Well, I'm pretty good at googling, so I found out this video, which shows that this building is a mosque: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYDxGm0yx7U&t=15m30s And the coordinates were apparently copied over from Moya, Comoros. During my research I haven't found any human-written evidence that a place called Mkiriwadjumoi exists. It's nowhere to be found on this map, for example. Both the sv:Mkiriwadjumoi and ceb:Mkiriwadjumoi articles were created and maintained by bots. No such user (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

However, researching further, I found out a mosque named mkiri wa djoumwa in the village of Miringoni on the island of Moheli. I suppose this is the ultimate source of the puzzle. However, I don't think it's WP:N enough for an article. No such user (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To be fair I still think there is a monastery there, however I agree with you that there are no valid reliable sources for it. My original research of seeing a building on the google map counts for nothing when looking at the policy that requires independent sources, so this article should really be deleted for not being acceptable according to the WP:V policy. I would say that this article being created at all is an example of a machine not doing the right thing and misleading people. All the evidence shows that Mkiriwadjumoi is just a building, that is not a populated place for the purposes of the WP:GEOLAND policy. I would almost certainly say it should be kept if shown official census data that says Mkiriwadjumoi is officially designated as a religious town though, because they do exist. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Also it is highly likely that it is a mosque and not a monastery at all, but I don't know on that. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I dug out an interesting piece of evidence [32], quick translation from French:
Since every vilage has to have a mosque, Mahorans make a distinction between a "normal" mosque and the "Friday" one (mkiri ya djumwa). The latter, owned by the whole village that maintains it, has a role that a parochial church or a cathedral had in the Middle Ages in the West. Thus, we can expect to find many mkiri ya djumwas, i.e. Jama Masjids across the Comoros. No such user (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Per the sources provided, he has indeed played in the ABA League and thus passing WP:NBASKETBALL. (non-admin closure) ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Martin Junaković

Martin Junaković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL/WP:GNG. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Sources (in Croatian):
  • "Junaković novo pojačanje Zagreba". Sportarena.hr. 30 August 2016.: Uslijedio je potpis za Cibonu gdje se nije puno naigrao, ali svejedno postao vlasnikom ABA prstena. "And then he signed for Cibona where he didn't play much, but he earned the 2013–14 ABA League ring regardless". That should qualify him for WP:NBASKETBALL, I suppose.
  • "Dok su ga svi tražili, Dario je bio kod mene na kauču". Večernji list. 25 October 2017. - Interview with him as a Zagreb player
  • "Klub se mora ponašati kao strog roditelj i to javno osuditi". Večernji list. 8 February 2014. - about a racist remark he made against an opponent, while in Cibona
  • "Cibona: Junaković će biti kažnjen zbog sramotnog istupa". Večernji list. 6 February 2014. - more about the racist remark
  • "Hrvatska svladala Litvu, Junaković junak susreta". Večernji list. 2 July 2013. - about his U-19 National team great game
  • "Martin Junaković". Second ABA League. - career history, should the article be kept (AV Ohrid plays in 2nd ABA league, but it's far below the first).

  Take of that what you want, I'm neutral. No such user (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep He passes WP:NBASKETBALL as he played in the ABA League in 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 per source provided by No such user and this [33]. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per Dammit_steve, did play in the ABA League apparently, therefore meets WP:NBASKETBALL. GregorB (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there is no longer any argument for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Cut Up

Cut Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability, either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO Two non-notable albums on Metal Blade records. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I know WP:ATD isn't really your thing, but would you care to explain why you are ignoring the potential pass of WP:NBAND via those two albums, and my comment when deproding suggest a potential merge to Vomitory (band)? --Michig (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ATDs are my thing but they don't pass NBAND. I frequently redirect and have done a number of merges. The problem is that Metal Blade is not a "major record label", as you claimed when you contested the PROD. Those labels are defined at Record label#Major labels, and that's linked on the notability criteria page. Care to explain why you have a broader set of inclusion than the rest of the project? However, Merge discussions don't come free with Twinkle,. Honestly though, there's nothing worth salvaging from the article so what's to merge? And the members are not prominent in either band (seen in the lack of write-ups). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I didn't claim Metal Blade was a major record label - read the guideline, which includes "one of the more important indie labels" which Metal Blade is for this genre. You claim "the members are not prominent in either band" - Rundqvist was the bassist/vocalist of Vomitory from 1999 to 2013 during which time they released seven of their eight albums, and Tobias Gustafsson was the drummer for the band's entire 24-year history, so how are those not prominent members? Do you actually read these things before making these comments? If you have a band which splits up and two of the most prominent members form another band, that's quite obviously worth including in the article on the first band. --Michig (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment There is print coverage in Terrorizer, Sweden Rock magazine, and Legacy, that should be sufficient for GNG. --Michig (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep- per references that makes this WP:GNG. WP:NBAND via two albums,--BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Withdraw The print sources that Michig found seem to show GNG, and there has been no traction on the AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ralph Pucci

Ralph Pucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. (In spite of what some editors think - having sources is not the same as have good sources.) Being semi-famous is not a reason to have an article. reddogsix (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is no need to delete the page. Ralph Pucci is quite noteable, and if you delete the page, people who want to find information about Ralph Pucci won't be able to. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a giant collection of knowledge? --Macaroniking (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not a collection of everything, but rather a collection of notable things. That said, you are right, and the sources support it: he's very notable. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The evidence suggests that Ralph Pucci is a notable person. --Macaroniking (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the nominator should try some WP:BEFORE next time. I added significant review/profile articles from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Architecture Digest. I agree that "having sources is not the same as have good sources.", however this article has good sources. I've added a lot of good references, and I might add that he has made a significant contribution to the field of mannequin design, thereby satisfying WP:ARTIST104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The coverage now cited in the article establishes notability. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Searched and found 2 reliable sources one from Huffington post and the other from NY Times. Passed WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Oswin Mascarenhas

Oswin Mascarenhas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reads like a press release. Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Basically patent nonsense. Sandstein 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Music and speech

Music and speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The bulk of the article is vague, meaningless, or trivial to the point of tautology, on the whole lacking in coherent information, so that there's no way to simply clean it up. I've tried to figure out how to save it, but if there's an article to be written on this subject, someone knowledgable about it would have to start it from scratch. I gather there might have been some substance to the article when it was created, but that was before the copyrighted material was removed. So we have what remains to work with, and that's what I'm evaluating.

"One of the main offshoots of music": What is an "offshoot of music" and what are the main ones? I don't understand the second sentence in the lead. After that, "Teenagers are by far the most easily influenced ...": by what? to do what? The remainder of the teenagers section is the only clear assertion in the whole piece.

The adults section tells us that we lack information on how "music combined with speech" affects adults. We learn that there was a Washington baby study. Of what? Concluding what? We learn that it wasn't the latest study (because there were others since). Some institutions are "looking into" an unspecified "this" new study ... and?

Finally, we are informed that programs on which people speak also have background music, which frequently matches the mood of the scene in tone. It includes no information about the impact that using background music on top of speech has, which would at least give us some encyclopedic insight. Largoplazo (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, borderline G1 as is. It also appears that the first four revisions were RD1'd; the fourth and fifth revisions removed a total of 3324 out of 6418 bytes, or about 52% of the article. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Nick Moyes, noticing my background in linguistics, suggested I take a look here with an eye toward improving the article. If there's any way to look at the text that was removed, it might well give us a hefty clue to what the remaining stuff was about. But those versions have been removed for copyvio. Does anyone know what references the deleted text cited?

  The five (remaining) citations are all to the same work in different formats, and Worldcat says there's a library near me that has it. If I can have some time, say a week, I'll see what I can do.

  The writing is also abominable; I could hardly bear to read it. Well, that's part of why I do a lot of copyediting. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Poorly written, lacking context, largely sourced to a single work. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Abhishek Chakraborty

Abhishek Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The person in the article fails to qualify WP:GNG per wikipedia rules. There are some references which are either WP:SPS or an offbeat interview or random mentions with other names. No significant coverage in media nor is the company/organization founded by them any significant/notable since it self does not have a Wikipedia page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

*Delete - Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 15:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; affiliated with nn entities. Likely a paid placement, given the contents. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Gil Wadsworth

Gil Wadsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill producer. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete lack of indepth coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Azad Film Company

Azad Film Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing significant in the coverage about this company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I thought it was a joke entry when I first read it. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Tytus Kanik

Tytus Kanik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for Darts players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Leif Totusek

Leif Totusek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Run-of-the-mill musician. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Vinod Dasari

Vinod Dasari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable businessman Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- a nn executive; sources are insufficient for notability. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Second Reformed Church Hackensack

Second Reformed Church Hackensack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Most of the information in the article is sourced from the church's website. There are now two book references in the article, each one only mentions the church on one page and doesn't provide any in-depth coverage. The first book has two sentences about the church's architecture and the second book has a paragraph about the church (the same way it does for every other church in the county). I wouldn't call either significant coverage. WP:PROD was "denied" by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) without any explanation (as usual). Rusf10 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- The article is ambiguous. Is is about the church building or the church congregation? If it were a historical landmark, I would say keep. As a congregation, it is not notable. Rhadow (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about the congregation or its leadership (a blue link into an empty wikidata page notwithstanding). All that is left is a church with Tiffany glass windows. If that makes the grade, then I suppose we should expect a large percentage of the 300,000 churches in the US to have articles proposed. If there were a landmark designation, I would say yes. Rhadow (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, there's nothing here. The keep arguments are not based on notability, but rather I think we have enough information to write an article. And I don't get the point of the wikidata entries for clearly non-notable people, maybe RAN can shed some light on that?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I see enough information for a standalone article per the GNG. --RAN (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The article, as expanded by RAN, merits retention based on the reliable and verifiable sources about the church. Again, we have a nominator who refuses to comply with WP:BEFORE, which requires seeking alternatives to deletion. Even if the nominator genuinely believes that the article should not exist on a standalone basis, the box that displays above this page when editing rather clearly states "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." All we have her is further abuse of process from an editor who simply won't comply with policy (as usual). Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alansohn:I did WP:BEFORE, I even did an analysis of the sources in the nomination. But I don't think you even bothered to read that. What would be an appropriate merge or redirect target here????? Your repeated comments about me are totally unacceptable. Why do you add something of value to a discussion instead of just personal attacks??? You don't bother to comply with WP:CIVILITY, so don't lecture me here on complying with policies.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, RAN was able to find the sources that you were unable to find and unwilling to search for, as usual. If you were here to build an encyclopedia rather than destroy it you might have found the appropriate merge target might well be ..... Hackensack, New Jersey. Maybe show some good faith by editing and improving an article, following through on a merge, maybe even adding a source. Try it. Once. See if it works. It's how editors contribute to Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

For the second time, I already addressed those sources, but you failed to read. Let me help you, "Most of the information in the article is sourced from the church's website. There are now two book references in the article, each one only mentions the church on one page and doesn't provide any in-depth coverage. The first book has two sentences about the church's architecture and the second book has a paragraph about the church (the same way it does for every other church in the county). I wouldn't call either significant coverage"--Rusf10 (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagreed completely, but for the third time what about the proposed merge to Hackensack, New Jersey? Even if as nominator you genuinely believe that the article should not exist on a standalone basis, the box that displays above this page when editing rather clearly states "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Will you follow policy here and either support a merge or explain why you refuse to do so? Alansohn (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't merge it to Hackensack, it gives WP:UNDUE to a religious organization (or perhaps a building, it not clear which is the subject of the article).--Rusf10 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If the amount of information is undue for a merge, then there must be enough information for a standalone article. I agree. BTW your criticism of the existing references came AFTER your PRODDED the article. So, yes, you could have performed a search instead of just looking at the existing article. At the reliable sources noticeboard you have a list of articles you think were wrongly saved. Any one of those could have been improved by yourself. --RAN (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

When I PRODDED the article, the only source was the church's website. You added the other references after and then I addressed them here when I created the AfD. BTW, when you dePROD an article it is strongly encouraged that you leave an explanation.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out by others, you never seem to look for references, and that is why your deletion ration is so bad. --RAN (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment --We frequently do not distinguish between buildings and congregations when it comes to churches. On the other hand, most loal churches are NN. The question is whether the Louis Comfort Tiffany stained glass is enough to make it notable. I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong keep Very notable church. Its architecture has been extensively noted in lots of sources. There's also coverage of the congregation. The Tiffany glass features. Just one example of the multitude of sources is the book Record of Fifty Years, 1855-1905, Second Reformed Church, Hackensack, N. J. by Arthur Johnson. The architecture of the building was also featured at a 1905 meeting of the Brooklyn American Institute of American Architects. 113 years of additional coverage and sourcing of the building, art, and congregation followed. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"'Record of Fifty Years, 1855-1905, Second Reformed Church, Hackensack, N. J.' " by Arthur Johnson" sounds like something written by a church member, not an independent source. The only possible notability would be the Tiffany windows, but many churches have Tiffany windows, so I do see why this one is unique.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets Wikipedia:GNG criteria with reliable sources provided. Tinton5 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep  Historic church/congregation with nice variety of sources in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, per editors above. Specifically if a church has original Tiffany windows it is usually going to be notable, in practice. About User:Rhadow's question whether a church article is about the congregation/organization or about the building(s), past and present, the answer is it is usually and very appropriately about all. We don't want to split into separate articles about a historic building vs. a congregation. --Doncram (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Doncram -- I didn't meant to imply that two articles were needed. The question was which of the two is notable, the architecture or the congregation. Insofar as the article gives scant recognition of the second, I take it the discussion here is about the notability of the architecture. There are hundred of churches with Tiffany glass and a handful of synagogues.[34]. Rhadow (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that source titled "Tiffany Stained Glass In Churches (PHOTOS)" suggests that "churches/synagogues having Tiffany windows" is a notable topic. It asserts hundreds of windows, not explicitly hundreds of churches (which could have a dozen windows each, say) but probably there are hundreds of churches, which is still no problem. I have seen a good number of U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed churches where the significance asserted is that the church has Tiffany windows. Many churches choose not to apply for or accept National Register listing, but it seems like "having Tiffany windows" suffices for a church being fundamentally notable. There will always then be occasional newspaper articles about the windows, before and after the internet.

By the way that source even seems to call for a "comprehensive" list, which IMO Wikipedia oughta provide. There are sources like the exhaustive list of Michigan installations cited in the Tiffany glass article. We do have Tiffany glass#Locations and collections but not a standalone List of Tiffany windows (currently a redlink) or List of Tiffany glass installations (currently a redlink). It's about time to start that, which would naturally link to this Hackensack church article, too. --Doncram (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets Wikipedia:GNG criteria with reliable sources provided.- Morphenniel (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as above Djflem (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep clearly has the sources to meet WP:GNG requirements based on the Tiffany connection. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Clements (Writer)

Thomas Clements (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like a decently sourced article at first glance. However, upon further review, every single source was written by the subject of this article. It is practically a promotional with no indication of passing GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Not quite, the first source was written by a third-party reviewer. However, the others were written by the subject, which is true. Ylevental (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete One third-party review is not enough to show a book is notable, let alone to show the writer of the book is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Naildown has itself been deleted. Sandstein 12:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Eyes Wide Open (Naildown song)

Eyes Wide Open (Naildown song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not sure this really passes music notability - not notable album from not notable band Burley22 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Naildown. Not notable enough for own article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Naildown as suggested by the last voter, or simply Delete because the song can be in the track list at the article for the associated album. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Naildown

Naildown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

doesn't pass notability guidelines ... I can't find anything other than the self-published sources listed in article ... possibly something in Finnish? Burley22 (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Manelolo (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - article on Finnish Wikipedia is unsourced.[[35]] Both album articles are unsourced, going on 7-10 years. I can't find any mainstream coverage - just niche metal blogs and fan sites. The article does mention they were recording a new album - but that was over 5 years ago. Nothing since. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Philip Tiju Abraham

Philip Tiju Abraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deprodded – original concern was "Even trivial mentions in reliable sources distinctly lacking. Not mentioned in any print media archived in AskAlexander". Fails WP:GNG PriceDL (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• delete trivial mentions as nom indicated Burley22 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Promotional piece. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the article is already sourced to reliable sources such as Mid Day and Deccan Chronicle, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Regardless of reliability those articles seem pretty trivial, failing WP:BASIC PriceDL (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - insufficient media coverqe to demonstrate notability - fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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