Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 October	28 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Jake LaMotta. Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph LaMotta[edit]

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

Joseph LaMotta fails WP:N. A google search turns up barely any coverage, let alone coverage from reliable sources. He was the son of a notable person, and died in a notable disaster. That's it. This article needs to go. Tapered (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable on any criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. This is about as Six degrees of separation from notability as any stub I've seen in recent months. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic example of how (in this case, literally) notability is not WP:INHERITED. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I share Fortuna's sentiment, literally nothing notable about this subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jake LaMotta - not notable as discussed above, but a plausible enough search term, and he's mentioned there. This is often done with non-notable relatives of notable individuals, where there's at least a plausible search term. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shonda Schilling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey), etc. Smartyllama (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both of the examples cited have much stronger google coverage than Joseph LaMotta, and are alive. Tapered (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jake LaMotta. Like Smartyllama said, I could see this as a plausible redirect to his much more notable father. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invergence[edit]

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

Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Invergence, as an alternative to divergence, is a term that has been used in the context of biblical genealogy.[1] But the interactive context in which the term has been used here seems to be a neologism with no uptake. There is a conference on the concept,[2] but it is not independent of the creator. Without independent reliable sources, the topic fails notability per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - internet marketing neologism that's basically an aspect of technological convergence (but not something that needs to be mentioned there, hence no redirect). The only sources cited here don't talk about the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moglix[edit]

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

company with no-notability. Coverage are mere Press for being funded. nothing to add. Article is created for mere promotions and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs cleanup and there are a ton of crap sources out there, but there are also good ones such as in Entrepreneur (written by staff writer) and Times of India.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur article is as questionable as the Credibility of "YourStory", "The Next Web", "Make use of" or similar to others (Recently got deleted and Wikipedia blocked them for questionable spam). It is written by their staff, but only about funding and influenced by company. Entrepreneur India is not even a certified and credible journalistic media. It is more like a blog. As recently deleted Dehlivery and on other Indian startups, they have nothing to talk about except funding news. Where it is obvious it is press coverage for any startup, which get funded by investors. It does not make such startup Encyclopedia notable. Not at this time. Probably in future they can. So what's the hurry? Light2021 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both listed links here are still advertising, literally coming from either the company's or the man's own words and sentences, so none of that is actually independent or substantial, as it is we have in fact established consensus that Indian news media is notoriously "pay-for news" therefore cannot be confidently acceptable; also, the entire article itself is simply advertising what there is to say about the company and services, none of it is actually convincing and the damningly blatant history of several advertising-only accounts emphasize this, therefore we never compromise with such advertising. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are questioning the tone of the sources? Not sure how that works. I understand attacking the tone of a page, but the news organizations that write about them? The Entrepreneur piece is written by a staff writer. It is not a paid or sponsored article. Even if it is pr driven - which is the majority of the news you read as pr firms constantly pitch stories to the media - the publication is known for its fact checking and this is an actual staff writer, not a contributor. Finally, you talk about promotion here as you have in many other delete !votes related to the nominator. I am wondering if you can point out the specific area(s) of this page that contains promotional wording. I am curious about the specific wording you find promotional. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be specific about parts having promotional or advertising content. And as far as news agencies are concerned, they work "pay-for news" in any part of the world let alone India. Also, I think we cannot be certain that those facts are fake which are mentioned in the given references. --anilkumatpatel (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change made by new user for removing AfD: User talk:103.16.29.142. Company influenced motive for sure.Light2021 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

: Note Barnstar is given by Anilkumatpatel (talk) and in return asking reason for AfD for this one. I do not know, it is relative or not. just putting notes here. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; here's just the lead excerpts:

It has partnered with manufacturers and authorized distributors in India, China and other Asian countries.[1] It currently deals in 21+ industrial categories and has about 1,000 sellers on its marketplace.[2] Etc. Etc.

No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Lots of coverage from sources that fall under WP:RS, though several of them smell a bit like PR despite not being labeled as such. However, the profile in Entrepeneuer India is enough for it to squeak by. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your week keep smells like something you want to keep only because I nominated it. Your assessment lacks the research. Entrepreneur India is not a Journalistic credible platform. Any blog writer or affiliated one can write about anything for that matter. No different than deleted The Next Web or Your Story. Your Weak Keep only exist for Vote sake. We are not building a Corporate Directory. No value is added to Encyclopedia. Only promotions. Non-notable even in their own industry. Light2021 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, your comments after every !vote are (1) unhelpful and (2) make no sense. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As usual complete denial and Lacks the intellectual assessment from your ends. You seriously need to read these article. Highly Recommended. I think You have never read them. It will make sense. If my English is not understood by you. This article Lacks every Encyclopedia standard possible created by Wikipedia.

Few more if you need to enhance your knowledge or my criteria of assessment. Do not make comment as Keep without assessing or passing Every article for Wikipedia. We are filled with such Directory and Corporate non-sesne Already. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jejani, Abhishek (2016-10-16). "Moglix: Using tech to disrupt distribution". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  mall and large enterprises have to procure industrial products from 100s of suppliers. Moglix, a business-to-business (B2B) e-commerce start-up, is trying to use technology to disrupt the traditional distribution channels for industrial products.
  Recently, the B2B start-up which specialises in procurement of industrial products such as fasteners and industrial electricals, raised $4.2 million (Rs 28 crore) in a Series-A round of funding, led by Accel Partners, Jungle Ventures and SeedPlus. It had also raised $1.5 million (Rs 10 crore) in November last year in the pre-Series-A round from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures. Ratan Tata also invested in the start-up in February.
  Founded in August 2015 by Rahul Garg, the start-up caters to around 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 100 large manufacturing houses through its platform. It has also partnered with manufacturers and distributors from China and Taiwan.
2. Nair, Sulekha (2016-02-08). "Ratan Tata's 6th investment in 2016 is B2B platform Moglix; founder Rahul Garg 'extremely pleased'". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded in August 2015 by former Googler Rahul Garg, Moglix is focused on technologically disrupting the B2B industrial products space for suppliers and buyers across the globe. It specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, fasteners and industrial electricals.
  ...
  Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform, build a deep supplier base as well as increase marketing spends across Asia.
  With its pre-Series A funds, the start-up was able to raise its core team from just two members -- Garg and his head of business operations, to a team of 7. It also strengthened its tech platform, says Garg.
  ...
  Moglix has a client base of 100+ companies in the manufacturing sector. These companies typically have a turnover ranging from Rs 50 crore to Rs 1,000 crore.
3. Avvannavar, Umesh M (2016-09-25). "Moglix plans to expand its footprint". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Moglix, an ecommerce company specialising in B2B procurement of industrial products, plans to expand its footprint.
  ...
  Founded in 2015, Moglix has been backed by VCs and industry leaders. ...
  The company specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, Fasteners, and Industrial Electricals. In order to cater to these requirements, Moglix has partnered with manufacturers and distributors across these categories and is working with several large manufacturing companies to completely transform the business-buying.
4. Banerjee, Sneha (2016-10-04). "Know What Goes Behind Getting 28 Crores As Funds". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  When ex-Google employee Rahul Garg, conceptualized his startup in late 2014, he realized that the global trade of products was still operating in the old fashion, while the internet/ mobile, had led to democratization of the services and mobile app and advertising ecosystem.
  His startup Moglix, is a B2B e-commerce platform, which specializes in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MROs, power tools, fasteners, electrical devices, industrial lubricants.
  ...
  The Firm today announced that it has raised INR 28 crores in Series A round of funding led by Accel Partners with participation from Jungle Ventures and SeedPlus. Moglix has raised Pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures in October 2015 and an undisclosed financial investment in the company by Ratan Tata in February 2016.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Moglix to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to cite references. No need to write. That is issue with coverage on media. That is why it is here on the first place. Please keep it short, not fill the whole Afd with writing published on news. It makes it lengthily with no reasons. You are doing same thing on every Afd. You are citing all kind of sources and writing them here. We all read them what is written there already. These all are Press or news about funding. and you are making or Keep vote based on that. where this is the major issue with such articles on wikipedia. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - The Delete nomination and comments here have evaluated and established that this is only existing as an advertisement and nothing else, and noticing the links above, it confirms it. See: "Moglix, a business-to-business (B2B) e-commerce start-up, is trying to use....The company, which specialises in....has funding.... the start-up caters to around 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises....It has partnered with....", " Rahul Garg, conceptualized his startup in late 2014, he realized....His start company, which specialises in....", "The Firm today announced that it has funding", "Moglix specialising in....The company specialises in" (literally within sentences and words of each other followed by "The company has been backed by....", "The company was able to get funding", "Moglix has a client base"

Every single damn source contains what the company itself published therefore none of it is actually substantial, independent or genuine news, if it's all advertising, and that's something only the company cares to know because it's the only one who would knows the company's plans and funding partnerships. Literally nothing else ever went apart from the company either having the founder advertise himself and the company or the company itself stating its business plans, funding partnerships, services, how to contact them, etc. When we start acknowledging such advertisements, we're saving ourselves from damages, but if we are not acknowledging blatancy, we're damning ourselves as have the listed sources above by literally succumbing themselves to publishing advertisements. Notice how I earlier also stated the sheer fact advertising-only accounts and company-initiated accounts were involved with this one article therefore, not only is it emphasizing advertising when all available sources are literally republished advertisements, it's worse if no one cares to either acknowledge and fix such blatancies by deleting. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot editing to make it encyclopedic and to conform it more closely with WP:NPOV. It's not very good right now. That, however, is not a reason to delete it, at least not where the subject has been garnered significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Please note, the test is not whether the sources currently appear in the article; the test is whether they exist. User:Cunard has demonstrated pretty conclusively that they do. David in DC (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is actually significant, substantial or independent based from my explicitly highlighted sections above showing the quotes from those links are literally republished advertising, which focuses at the company and its own services. Also, when an entire article is still founded with advertising and the sources are, that's not going to fix anything because, given everything, it's all still an advertisement; for example, if the sources are removed, the advertised information stays, and if vice versa, that stays also. Therefore the solution is to delete altogether, especially since we never compromise with such blatancy and also given the fact this was literally contributed to by massive advertising-only accounts. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty (2016 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. PROD removed by an IP who added two references, one to IMDb and one showing this film as one entry in a list of 30 films that won awards at the LA Shorts Awards. The only other distinction claimed is a nomination for another award. Other references are all IMDb and Youtube. None show in-depth, independent discussion of the film. This is far short of the standard of WP:Notability (film). JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no in-depth secondary sources, and the film's sole award ("Best Lighting") is from a non-notable monthly awards website. --McGeddon (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results are pretty barren. MOS:FILM was recently amended to discourage the addition of run-of-the-mill awards, and the awards in the article don't seem to be major. Article seems to have been created to promote the director; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Duhamel6666/Archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers spacecraft. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ark (Transformers)[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. Nothing was presented in previous AfDs to help with that. TTN (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel WP:N has been met. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia's Notability guideline works. It's a measure of coverage in reliable, third party sources, not some subjective idea based upon the amount of appearances. This article lacks such sources, other than some fluff that doesn't actually cover the topic in detail. TTN (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Autobot. BOZ (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Transformers spacecraft or delete. It's covered there in enough detail. This is an in-universe plot summary more suited to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NinjaRobotPirate. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per NinjaRobotPirate. If redirected rather than deleted, I recommend that the history be deleted so as to discourage re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Asia Song Contest[edit]

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

The article has been created way WP:TOOSOON. Although it is likely the contest will take place, it is still unknown as to what name the contest will go under as. Several sources have speculated names, including Asiavision, Asia-Eurovision, and Eurovision-Asia. The ABU (who is assumed to be the organisers) also have reported to the name ABU TV Cup Song Contest, to which ABU Cup TV Song Contest 2017 was redirected as being WP:TOOSOON with hardly any sources to warrant a standalone article at this current stage. TV shows which are still at the planning stage should not be granted an article unless the shows title is 100% confirmed. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 14:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL No objection to an article when the event actually happens or is at least in a state when the schedules have been announced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Connell[edit]

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

non notable writer. Most of the article is based upon SUR, apparently a tourist newspaper for English tourists in Spain. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Writer of 'Against a Peacock sky' a quite well known book — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the book may(?) be notable , but there isn't any evidence here from the references provided that its author is. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The author and book appear notable, but there is a lack of sources in the article which prove this. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several journals that I don't have access to which review her work: Atlantic (02769077); Jul91, Vol. 268 Issue 1, p113-113, 1/9p, Far Eastern Economic Review; July 4 1991, Vol. 153, p32-32, 1p, and TLS; March 8 1991, p23-23, 1p. I retrieved the listings from EBSCOhost. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing for WP:AUTHOR considering there's no actual substance of sources, and nothing else coming close to suggest an otherwise equivalent of better. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyka blyat[edit]

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

WP:NOTADICTIONARY applies. I believe it means 'fucking bitch' in russian. It is indeed used commonly in the online CSGO community, but does not seem notable enough for its own article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article definitely does not establishWP:N, but there is quite a few articles of the same nature. This one is just lacking I think. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary entry. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:GNG, as noted above. There are lots of swear words, and this is unlikely to have any reliable sources. Is it snowing in Russia?Bearian (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a snow ball's chance in hell of being kept, literally nothing and there's not actual information to come close at all for an actual article. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unreferenced essay with no need for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perhaps could've been speedied. Regardless, this is a WP:SNOW scenario. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTDIRECTORY as already stated. I was tempted to tag it under A11 however I saw the Urban Dictionary posting from July 2015 so chances the article creator didn't make it up. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dal Food[edit]

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

I could find no sources online to establish the notability of that particular sub-branch, though there are a few hits for the main company (for instance here (paywall) or here).

It would be nice to have more eyes on this; I have the gut feeling that the main company should pass notability but I did not find enough for it, so it may be that I missed a lot in my search. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, not notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unverifiable, lacking reliable sources, and ordinary commodities company without any significant coverage about this company. Bearian (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatty Koo[edit]

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

Aside from their own website, there are no sources of significant coverage to constitute notability for this non-charting group. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trajectories (magazine)[edit]

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

I am struggling to see how this article meets WP:GNG. An irregularly published, rather short-lived publication that sounds like a fanzine and seems to be self-referencing. I'm guessing that the creator thought that contributions from some notable people would confer notability on the publication itself - it does not. Its co-publisher, Richard Shannon, is also of dubious notability. Sitush (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karuppu Raja Vellai Raja[edit]

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

De-prodded for an unexplained reason while the problems still exist. My initial concern was: I don't see any real organized plot to this very short article. Also to mention that the title is not in English and I haven't a clue what it translates to. No improvements have been made at all. MPD (Talk to me!) 15:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that there doesn't have to be an English translated title. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: No official confirmation about this film yet/shoot definitely will not start for another year. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Too short. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91A7:F0E4:FFD3:D75F (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON; FYI, @Matthew Peter-Davis: The meaning of title is Black King, White King (as in Chess game). --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 01:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We almost always delete film stubs pre-release/-production. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maylord Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Non notable shopping centre, Google News brings up 3 results being mentions, and one result inregards to the centre having a new owner, I'd be happy to use it however that's not enough notability-wise, Google books brings up nothing, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 13:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing here that cannot be covered in the settlement article.Charles (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill shopping centre. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shopping centre with 50 or so stores. Does not pass WP:GNG Ajf773 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Rose[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Couldn't find any in-depth coverage of the subject that would point to notability. Psychonaut (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a WP:BLP and there is literally not a single source about this person in the stub. Since he appears to be a run of the mill journalist, it is unlikely that we'll find anything useful. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amotz Plessner[edit]

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

Despite having scored "over twenty films and numerous TV shows", and having co-founded a commercial music licensing business, there is scant evidence of any significant independent coverage of Plessner's career. The two citations present (after I deleted the use of another Wikipedia page as a citation) are his own IMDb page and a Facebook page. Google shows me there's not much better available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too significant for deletion. Composer of over 30 pictures, most of them television, some of them notable. Haters Back Off is expected to get a lot of exposure too. I suggest adding a discography, though. -Throast (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Throast: Your argument sounds a lot like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Someone is only "too significant for deletion" if there are actually sources to verify that significance. In this case, that does not appear to be the case. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolumittay (film)[edit]

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

PROD statement: Principal photography has not begun. Case of WP:TOOSOON. Nairspecht (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

no dab:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Kolu Mittayi Kolumittayi

Keep. Sorry Nairspecht, while difficult to source due to language issues, this film is sourcable as having begun filming, appears to have been film completed with a trailer released and audio released, for an October 28 release, and enough production sources available (some even in English[3]) to show it meeting the instructions of WP:NFF. Needs editorial attention, not deletion. And by the by...Kolu Mittayi or Kolumittayi are the better sourcable (that last "i" is being used) titles for a suggested renaming, and per WP:NCF there really is no need for the disambig "(film)" to muddle things up. Best now to keep this stub and encourage it be expanded and sourced through regular editingSchmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Due diligence finds English language sources New Indian Express, Man Galam, Times of India (1), Times of India (2), Times of India (3), Times of India (4), Times of India (5), and Malayalam language Mathrubhumi, Man Galaam, Man Galaam, Kerala Kaumud, Kerala Kaumud, and many, many more to meet WP:GNG. Sources for a Malayalam language film do not have to be English just so long as they existand are found with a decent look. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The article nominator has been indef-blocked for sock-puppetry. I now urge this AFD be speedy closed as he is now unable to address sources brought forward showing that WP:TOOSOON is inapplicable as the topic meets instructions of inclusion criteria. I'd do it myself, but havin gargeud and demonstrated why a keep is preferable, I am not uninvolved. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulmalik Afegbua[edit]

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

Multiple issues, not verifyable, no sources. Fails WP:PEA but if peacockery is removed, no article is left. I left it some time to see if it would improve but it hasn't. ronaz ^Talk! 17:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sources on this person. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor mentions, fails WP:BASIC —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SSPTV[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced article on a local cable access channel. Would need to make WP:ORG, and I don't see how that could be possible. John from Idegon (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add references please. Where are the references? Regards Expressway232 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expressway232 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are hardly any sources available for this. I am having trouble even verifying the information. At best this would be a local television channel with hardly any secondary sources. Due to verifiability concerns, I will go for a TNT delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that verifiability is a huge concern here, and I think we don't have much option but to delete at this time. If a contributor can provide reliable sources, it can be recreated at that time. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced WP:PROMO page. There's nothing there. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Institute[edit]

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

NJon notable record label. Speedy removed because 'founders are notable' Not good enough imo; this is a slender and promotional article and I see no reason why the label is independatly notable TheLongTone (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of bones and teeth[edit]

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

This article is poorly written and not a true comparison of bones and teeth. Major sections are essentially outlines of the qualities of teeth and of bones, which are already covered properly in their own articles. heather walls (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there's anything that's not covered in either bone or teeth articles.--72.58.114.125 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:OR. Creator can try to add this to Wikiuniversity if they like Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwa Gujarat[edit]

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

No source for content. No indication of nobility. Coderzombie (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given sources are far from reliable and my searches are finding nothing better. Nor do Alexa ratings around 18000 and 10000 in India give the appearance that some mark of notability is being missed. Unless something better can be found, this fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 09:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honeypreet Insan[edit]

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

Was involved in a couple of films by her father. No other evidence of notability. ubiquity (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about this individual. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. Only coverage of subject in RS are passing mentions. Meatsgains (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. One is unable to write an encyclopedia article about her given the lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Anup [Talk] 22:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayda Fransen[edit]

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

Is the deputy leader of a largely burnt-out protest group that holds about 3-4 marches a year that usually attract less than a couple hundred people. Paul Golding and Britain First are probably notable, so maybe a merge is appropriate. However, there is nothing on the subject to satisfy WP:GNG JohnTombs48 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This page has an average of 2500 visits in a month. Jayda Fransen might use unorthodox means to spread her agenda but I believe that Wikipedia is neutral and about sharing knowledge. JohnTombs48 should therefore refrain from enforcing his/her person political opinions to others on Wikipedia. Thanks!Zotezangu (talk) 19:00, October 27, 2016.
- Clicks on wikipedia don't establish notability. She fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. If you want to talk about followers on a platfrom, Zotezangu, even if this does establish notability which it doesn't, the only platform she has a official account on personally is YouTube, and she holds scarcely more than a 1,000 followers there. I have an account on YouTube with more than this, does that mean I deserve an article? JohnTombs48 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sadly JohnTombs48, you have viewers on YouTube (if at all that is true) but no knows about you. Now help by developing the stub, it will boost your Wikipedia contribution. Zotezangu (talk) 19:16, October 27, 2016.
    - As if it matters, most veteran wikipedians will agree [4] [5] edit count doesn't really matter on wikipedia. One of the 11 articles I have written includes Hashtag United F.C. which the current addition all but 5 words of (99%) is my contribution, and said page sometimes gets upwards of 400 clicks a day, which is far more than this article. But that's irelevant to this discussion. You still have not proved how the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, which it needs to do to qualify for inclusion on wikipidea. JohnTombs48 (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi JohnTombs48, If all you have written are 11 articles, then I cannot argue with you. That would be degrading myself as we are not on the same level. Zotezangu (talk) 13:25, October 28, 2016 (UTC).
      - Please note that Wikipedia editors are judged on the quality of their contributions and the depth of their understanding of Wikipedia policy and procedure, not on the raw edit count of how many articles they happen to have created. Many of Wikipedia's best contributors are task-gnomes who look after cleaning up typos and formatting problems in existing articles but have never directly created one themselves, and many of Wikipedia's worst contributors are article creators. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi MordeKyle, Since the article is a stab, could you assist in expanding it? Wikipedia is about collaboration. Thank you. Zotezangu (talk) 13:25, October 28, 2016 (UTC).
Delete. Being deputy leader of a small fringe political party is not, in and of itself, a free WP:NPOL pass that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing — but none of the sourcing here gets her over GNG at all. What we have here for "referencing" is primary sources and blog entries, not real coverage in real media — but real coverage in real media is what you need to actually get someone over the Wikipedia inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge any useful content into Britain First. Bondegezou (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Only Paul Golding qualifies, barely, and there's virtually nothing substantive to write about her. AddMore-III (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm usually an inclusionist, but there's very little material here and I'm not sure much more could be added without waffling. Perhaps in a few years the subject might be notable but not as it stands. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trains of West Central Railway (India)[edit]

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

per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTIMETABLE βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a directory. Nordic Nightfury 10:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this article (as Wikipedia is not a directory) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trains of South East Central Railway (India)[edit]

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

per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTIMETABLE βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a directory. Nordic Nightfury 10:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this article (as Wikipedia is not a directory) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trains of Central Railway (India)[edit]

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

per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTIMETABLE βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 15:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for this article (as Wikipedia is not a directory) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Sportsfan1234. Clear WP:NOT failure here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wayne Gretzky#Legacy. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Gretzky Award[edit]

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

Non-notable sports trophy Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought of it is a non-notable sports trophy in the beginning, even misinterpreted with Wayne Gretzky 99 Award, but after @GLG GLG:'s explanation here only, I have come to know Wayne Gretzky Award is different than the Wayne Gretzky 99 Award.

I may have not sourced properly but that doesn't mean that is not notable.

Please check the Google News above, Wayne Gretzky Award is mentioned at least 12 different news articles currently.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As I'm sure everyone's aware, it's not remotely enough for a subject to receive casual mention in news sources. It must receive "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, which discuss the subject in significant detail, as per the GNG. Each and every one of that handful of news articles mentions it in passing only, and furthermore the articles mention several different awards by the same name, including one that's purely hypothetical. Indeed, Lake Ontario Wind is correct in stating that a subject is not non-notable simply because the article's sourcing is deficient ... but contrarily, an article cannot be sustained for a subject without proper sourcing. Ravenswing 13:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing:, I checked Wayne Gretzky Trophy and Wayne Gretzky 99 Award; they too are not passing the GNG according to your suggestion. Can I request deletion for those articles as well and create a new page List of Awards and Trophies named after Wayne Gretzky and merge all these articles together?Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly file AfDs on them if you wish -- or redirect them to the appropriate league pages -- but it strikes me that we don't need an article about all such awards; that wouldn't be notable either. All this merits is something like a single sentence in Gretzky's own article. Ravenswing 01:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am bit confused of your suggestion, in that case, most of the articles here will qualify for a redirect.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not even the most prominent award called the "Wayne Gretzky Award", and the author does not even understand who the award is given to while trying to argue that it is notable. Perhaps use your sandbox, develop an understanding of who the winners are, and then see if there is any real coverage outside of small local Edmonton publications.18abruce (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am suspicious now that you meant to make an article about the even more obscure trophy that is given to a member of the Greater Toronto Hockey League's Toronto Nationals yearly, which makes it utterly ridiculous to argue for notability.18abruce (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can a league which was founded in 1911, award obscure trophies? Have you got any WP:RS to support your claim or is it your own research?Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If, in fact. you are trying to make the article about the award that Velan Nandhakumaran won, then the league does not award it at all. Only one team, only to its players. Look at the trophy in the picture, and what the trophy says. None of the sources I found in a google search were about this award, they were about the US Hall of Fame, or the Edmonton youth trophy. I apologize if using "utterly ridiculous" was offensive in any way, or if I am mistaken in what the article was meant to be about.18abruce (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Err. Are you genuinely asserting that awards issued by an entity that's been around over a century are notable by that fact alone? Mm, that'd mean that the awards given by my grandfather's yacht club (which was founded in the 1890s) are notable. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't work that way, so let me reiterate: the definition of notability is fundamentally rooted in the GNG, and requires that a subject receive substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The league could've been around for a thousand years, and its awards wouldn't be automatically notable without it. Ravenswing 12:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know what the "Wayne Gretzky Award" is all about and from where Velan Nandhakumaran has got it. My confusion earlier was with the "Wayne Gretzky Award" and the "Wayne Gretzky 99 Award"; now it seems there are varieties of "Wayne Gretzky Award" itself. I think as @Ravenswing: suggested I want to redirect Wayne Gretzky Award to legacy section of Wayne Gretzky with the sentence, "......Wayne Gretzky Award is awarded with similar names by number of entities including United States Hockey Hall of Fame, Edmonton Youth Trophy and Toronto Nationals of the GTHL".Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed:

It seems Toronto Nationals (hockey) is defunct, but there is a website shows they are active. Can some one clarify on this regard?Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lake Ontario Wind: The Junior ice hockey level Nationals are defunct, however, the Minor hockey level teams are still active. Apparently same organization, different teams, and also quite common still. Many organizations have the same name for all their teams (U8, U12, U18, etc) and will sometimes host Junior level teams. Minor/midget level hockey teams have no inherent notability. Yosemiter (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter:Thanks for the clarification, I will discuss with you later on whether we could Move the pages to more appropriate names.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wayne Gretzky#Legacy, which mentions the award. Not notable, but a plausible search term, and a mention in the Gretzky article plus a redirect should be sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (preserving the edit history) per Smartyllama. I found multiple articles in assorted news media around Canada covering the minor league award as well as some of the other similarly named awards, but not enough to create a need for a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elusivewax[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Can't find any significant coverage under any of his names. Kolbasz (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Article creator is an SPA who admits a close relationship with the subject. Unless the article author can dig out interviews with the subject from UK music magazines such as Mixmag, the chances of finding any reliable or in-depth sources are slim. Of the current seven references, one is a local newsletter from south-east London, one is simply a link to the webpage of the now-closed club where he had a residency, three are passing mentions in club listings, and two are the artist's own social media pages. Richard3120 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashique Kuruniyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD contested for no reason ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG; at best a case of WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 09:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internetrix[edit]

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

From tone of writing to references. No references are found to this degree of claims made by this company. Highly and only promotional. No Encyclopedic notability. Awards and the way it has written influenced by company or made by them only. Light2021 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are only a few references I found on Google News and nothing that would amount to significant coverage. As such, it fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 03:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Vorobyov[edit]

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

Update Now that it has two entries, keep the DAB and close this discussion. Abbottonian (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not need of disambiguation for just 1 page. Abbottonian (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a need of disambiguation for two articles: Konstantin Vorobyov (writer) and Konstantin Vorobyov (athlete). --Sol1 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that Konstantin Vorobyov (athlete) finished fourth in the men's marathon at the 1960 Summer Olympics and thus is deemed notable under WP:NTRACK. On the other hand he doesn't seem to have an article even in Russian Wikipedia: see ru:Воробьёв, which lists articles about several other Konstantins but not the runner, and ru:Лёгкая атлетика на летних Олимпийских играх 1960 — марафон (мужчины), where he is a redlink. The writer appears to be the primary topic and under WP:TWODABS there's no need for a separate disambiguation page. The article currently at Konstantin Vorobyov (writer) should be moved to Konstantin Vorobyov and a headnote can be added for the runner. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The writer appears to be the primary topic... With just three internal links in the English Wikipedia? And if there's the need for the Russian Wikipedia to have a disambiguation page (see ru:Воробьёв,_Константин), why not for the English Wikipedia? --Sol1 (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly reasonable disambiguation page. If one of the articles is deleted however I think a discussion to delete must restart, as I assume must have happened to Konstantin Vorobyov (actor)JohnTombs48 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now has 3 valid entries, 2 with articles and one which meets MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid dab page. Has in effect with Withdrawn by nominator. PamD 10:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. G12 copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Circulation Drilling[edit]

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

Delete or move to Drilling. Abbottonian (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that this article could be a part of overall drilling - but would be better as a subsection. The methodology and applications differ significantly enough to have a separate page. Reverse circulation drilling is utilized when environmental concerns are high in the creation of new foundations and it is a very specialized technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanched (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a longer discussion of the technique at Drilling rig#Reverse circulation (RC) drilling. That section doesn't have any in line sources either, but quick GBooks and GScholar searches suggests that there's plenty of reliable sources out there that could be used to verify the content. As an editorial matter I suggest it would be better to improve the existing content at drilling rig and defer creation of a separate article until it's apparent that there's not enough room in the broader article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Wireless[edit]

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

From tone of writing to Brochure links download as PDF. No references are found to this degree of claims made by this company. Highly and only promotional. No Encyclopedic notability. Light2021 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought I would find more references since the company was started in 2002. However, Google News only showed 2 results with one of them being a press release. The references in the article are all unreliable sources, the company website, or broken links. There is no significant coverage and therefore fails WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, considering this was speedy deleted as G11 once before, as I'm not finding anything better, the article overall is noticeably advertising, complete with company and employee specifics, and the past advertising-only accounts expectedly emphasize this. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autech Software and Design[edit]

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

Non-notable. Highest degree or promotions. Wikipedia used as dumping corporate profile and the way it is written completely influenced by company or made by their team alone. Being old is not a criteria for Encyclopedic notability. Light2021 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and also WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing in Google News. The references in the article are either not independent, brief mentions, or from unreliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam article Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any coverage in reliable third party sources. The article is also G11 eligible at this point. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a client prospectus in the guise of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Kourinsky[edit]

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

there are no sources whatsoever in this article and noting notable found in English on the web Domdeparis (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, no evidence of notability exists on the English web, but crucially, the Ukrainian Wikipedia article for this person has also been deleted (so it seems there wasn't any evidence of notability in Ukrainian either). --♫CheChe♫ talk 14:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Puff piece lacking any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not verify notability.RollingFace99 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and uncited. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I'm not noticing anything better for WP:MUSICIAN, WP:PROF or AUTHOR at all, none of what's listed is substantiated or convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Westbrook Waldron (Canada)[edit]

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

Delete as the subject fails all notability criteria. Most of the "sources" cited are self-published and unreliable; ~~including~~ the book John Wentworth wrote is about his own family. The author, RWIR has been abusing Wikipedia for genealogy and this is one of many articles he's written which should not exist. I encourage you to look in the article history at the cruft this article had before I removed it. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is indeed a genealogical profile of a person whose only claim of encyclopedic notability is that he's an ancestor of other people, and which is sourced almost entirely to genealogical sources like Ancestry.com and census records and LDS microfilms. WikiTree exists for what this user seems to want to do, but this is not what Wikipedia is for. Bearcat (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete Obviously NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Personal genealogy. nerdgoonrant (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, though I was a little surprised at the word "abuse" and disappointed that Wentworth's three volume work, published by Little and Brown of Boston was considered self published or not reliable. Many have written about their own families, including Obama's Dreams from my father, and Ignatieff's Russian Album, and not just the Hon. John Wentworth. I will not object to the deletion of the Thomas Westbrook Waldron (Canada) article and thank everyone for the several years it has stayed on wikipedia without any challenge. Would be interested in learning what other articles are considered not notable?RWIR (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone's own descendants may have written about them in a book is not in and of itself a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article. Obama's father was a notable government official who would have had an article regardless of what his son did or didn't achieve, and did not get an article because of Dreams from My Father in and of itself — and most of Ignatieff's relatives covered in Russian Album do not have their own separate articles at all, with the exceptions of the ones who were already notable anyway regardless of that book. Nobody's discounting the existence of Wentworth's book; the existence of that book simply isn't in and of itself a reason why everybody named in that book qualifies for a standalone encyclopedia article of their own. Each person still has to actually pass a specific notability criterion for their own specific achievements in life, and if they do that then that book can be used for some supplementary sourcing of their family background where appropriate — but that book does not, in and of itself, make every individual person named in it notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because that book exists. If "named in a family genealogy book" is the strongest notability claim you can come up with, because the person lived an entirely normal and unexceptional and not-noteworthy life otherwise, then the book is not a valid reason for an encyclopedia article in and of itself. (Hell, I could get 20 or 30 of my relatives into Wikipedia if "named in a published genealogy work" were all it took — but with the exception of one great-uncle who actually held an WP:NPOL-passing position and thus has an article on that basis, all of the rest would boil down to "he was born, he bought a farm, he had children, he died" with no particular reason why an encyclopedia article about those facts was warranted at all.) Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was not clear, I have said that I would not object to this article's deletion. What I was commenting on was the assertion that Wentworth's book was self published or not reliable. Thanks again.RWIR (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RWIR: Wentworth isn't an independent source, which is what I meant to say. In my haste I overstated the case. The book he wrote was published by Little, Brown and Company although the conflict of interest makes me doubt reliability. The fact that it's about his own family is why I don't trust the source. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEMORIAL; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial history and WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. COI spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kommende Dortmund[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources, obvious WP:COI and promotional. Kleuske (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising. There seem to be some sources in German which may be able to be used for a German speaker to write an article but as it stands this one does not look salvageable. Tagged {{db-advert}} Jbh ^Talk 13:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun K Singh (Musician)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability SST flyer 13:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 13:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 13:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable composer of a non-notable album fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. GSS (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – subject has no noteworthy works, no reliable sources to demonstrate even remote notability. Not seeing this subject meeting any of the 12 criteria listed via WP:MUSICBIO. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per MelbourneStar; completely non-notable. Reference to his work as an 'album' is also pushing it, as so far seems to consist of a 4' YT upload. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not notable... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Americans in Philippine Scouting[edit]

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

Delete-overspecific topic of dubious notability. The sourcing is there, but the importance is not. Editor is eager and energetic but has been content-forking these Philippine Scout articles for weeks, and they simply don't bear that much detail on Wikipedia Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief Scouts of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines for an example of another Philippine Scouting content fork. Separate biographies should be written, with "Americans in Philippine Scouting" as a category at best. Not a topic for a standalone article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering a bulk afd of all of these content forks below, which belong back in a parent article. There is no restraint or moderation on the editor's part. @Naraht: has tried to mentor him, and I have left comments on talkpages, which are met with walls of TLDR text.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have mergetagged all of these, each of the target articles already have merge discussions on the talkpages.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to note, as Naraht has pointed out, we would really like @Oliver Puertogallera: to come here, work with us, I'd rather save his hard work where it can be saved, I respect his passion and don't want to see it disappear wholesale, just to absorb that Wikipedia is collaborative and there are standards in place for article depth and content.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't believe Wikipedia should be used to list histories of everyone who's been a member of the Boy Scouts, not matter how well-researched. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge and trim. I think there is probably enough even after trimming for a History of Scouting in the Philippines. I'd love to suggest another article of set of articles as a guide for similar articles, but haven't been able to find one. From looking at Category:World Organization of the Scout Movement member organizations, it appears that the only other members of the WOSM with multiple articles are BSA and the Scout Association in Britain, but neither has a history even close to this level. And this feels more like an intervention than an AFD. 1/2 :)Naraht (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial and over detailed for an encyclopedia. The role of Americans in Philippine Scouting should already be covered in other articles, and notable individuals should have their own biographies.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article also claims that "not a single American figure in Philippine Scouting has ever been invited to revisit the Philippines." How could this claim possibly be proven? In any event, some of the people listed in this article are identified as having died in the Philippines, so those people either never left the Philippines or they came back on their own without having to be invited. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Higgins[edit]

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

Fails all criteria of WP:NACADEMIC: Google Scholar does not suggest frequent citation, and regular Google results are sparse as well. —swpb^T 12:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep -- Google books prevew returns what appears to be sufficient mentions, including a reference to his works as a "breakthrough" and a "comprehensive study of Canadian local politics". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Seems to have sufficient citations on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=higgins+djh&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 and on Google search. He is variously named as "Douglas Higgins", "DJH Higgins", and combinations thereof. Theo (Talk) 12:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm only seeing an h-index of 4 on Google scholar for author:djh-higgins — this may not mean much for this area, where book publishing rather than journal articles may be more the norm, but it's definitely not enough to form the basis of a keep opinion here. Worldcat shows ok library holdings for his two books (296 for "Urban Canada : its government and politics" and 118 for "Local and urban politics in Canada") but I'd be more convinced by in-depth reviews of these books than by numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet notability guidelines and is noted academically. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the scholar search and the results provided by K.e.coffman are enough to merit inclusion in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hope for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiy Kurbatov[edit]

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

No sources at all Domdeparis (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof on GS cites. Not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article looks like a claim that would lead to notability and his Scholar profile shows only single-digit citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Malaysia[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable national subevent of Miss Grand International, no more notable than the considerable number of articles about other Miss Grand national subevents that have previously been deleted here at AfD (such as Miss Grand Korea, Miss Grand Botswana, Miss Grand Argentina, Miss Grand Japan, Miss Grand Albania, Miss Grand Romania, Miss Grand Italy, Miss Grand Thailand, Miss Grand Cambodia, Miss Grand Algeria and Miss Grand Nepal; and Miss Grand México was redirected to Rostro de México, which has since been deleted...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable and as per WP:OUTCOMES, these articles are routinely deleted just like the articles specified above.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable subcompetition. Lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources confirms this. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable event. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sarah Vowell#Short film. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vowellett - An Essay by Sarah Vowell[edit]

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

Non-notable short film unsupported by any (reliable) sources. Carniolus (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarah Vowell#Short film, where it's described in grid form perfectly and the notes can be expanded slightly with detail from here. Nate • (chatter) 18:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to deletion, I am also supporting redirect.--Carniolus (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Design Excellence Awards[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines. All 31 references are press releases, or citations from captive publications of the media company that created the awards. Few or no independent news sources or publications cite or mention the awards. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 09:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete could maybe survive as a list article but there would need to be enough reliable, independent sources showing the topic is notable and I have not found them. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- PR driven award from a marginally notable entity, the UBM Canon media group. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete needs independent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Knight & Associates[edit]

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

The latest bit of paid promotion for the non notable business. Business lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the so called awards are major. Current sourcing is a mix of PR, primary and a minor mentions. A search found nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG no evidence of notability at all. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find evidence that this company meets WP:CORP. Analysis by the nom appears to be spot on - the refs in the article are minor, routine or PR.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindstir Media[edit]

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

The latest bit of paid promotion for the non notable business. Business lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the current sourcing: 3-5 are passing mentions; 1 is a social platform, not a reliable source, the founder talking about the business, not independent; 2 is a local interest piece. A search found more of the same and a lot of press releases. Nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. --JessikaRita (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable company here in Portsmouth and has published several books. There are also reliable sources which makes it qualify to have a page of its own.Melanie98765 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)~~<— Melanie98765 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of JessikaRita (talk • contribs).~~ No, they're not. Inappropriately struck comment un-struck in the archive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as easily passes GNG. All the listed sources are from independent reliable source plus there are awards which shows notability. Riferbare (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)— Riferbare (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet ~~of JessikaRita (talk • contribs).~~ [reply]

Please don't lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is this? Please, stop making personal attacks. And yes this is nonsense! Riferbare (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Socks comments struck. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wonder why this discussion is still ongoing. This is a notable publishing company. Sources 1 and 2 on the page are both notable and credible sources, having been listed on Wikipedia themselves, and a search on Amazon returned around 500 results for books that Mindstir Media has published Kinberley (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance for this self-publishing house. Strictly promotional and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable company and obvious paid promotional article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:Corp; promo article which reads like a press release. Kierzek (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rinky Kapoor[edit]

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

Non-notable medical biography. No significant contribution made to the field of medicine. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not a Wkipedia article, but rather an advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Singh[edit]

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

Per WP:SOLDIER, the subject must be recipient of the award for multiple times, if it is not the highest decoration of the country. Maha Vir Chakra is not the highest decoration of India. Also does not pass WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one award of the second highest medal doesn't make him notable. Lacking that, he also doesn't pass WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mid-ranking officer who received a single second-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Khokhar[edit]

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

Vir Chakra is the third highest military decoration in India. Subject fails WP:SOLDIER and also WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer who received a single third-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem to have received significant coverage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Krishna Trivedi[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER and also WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mid-ranking officer who received a single third-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 10:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lohit Sonowal[edit]

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

Non-notable award recipient. Per WP:SOLDIER, the subject has to be the recipient of highest award or recipient of lower award multiple times. Kirti Chakra is not the highest award in India. Also doesn't clearly pass WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable recipient; so little info. barely a stub and linked only to one primary source. Kierzek (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is not the highest but second highest peacetime gallantry award (after Ashok Chakra). There are independent reliable sources which covered the mention. But again, it is just a mention and this article is very unlikely to be developed from 1-sentence stub. If anyone can find his town/village article, it can go there. Anup [Talk] 11:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior officer who received a single second-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October 18, there are no procedural grounds to relisting this soon, since a new development has taken place. To summarize, from my DRV comment: Since the first AfD, this article has been deleted from Polish Wikipedia (which usually has much lower criteria for notability): pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2016:09:08:Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska. Closing admin there concluded that a minor/local parish magazine and an obituary are not sufficient. As I feel that the deletion arguments (the subject is not notable either as an architect - all she has here is a short online bio at professional association she was a member of - and as an artist - her work is only mentioned in a local, niche, parish magazine) are significantly stronger then the votes to keep (one of which argued that said parish magazine is a sufficient source, the other that women architects are marginalized so we should keep this article to reduce our gender bias in coverage), and as there is no discussion on article's talk, despite my post there, I think we need to revisit this. Bottom line - not all architects are notable, and this one hasn't done anything to merit being in an encylopedia; ditto as an artist she fails WP:Notability (artists) - her work has not attracted attention form anywhere but said local parish magazine, and the claims of "multiple exhibitions" are not substantiated except said parish article based significantly on interview with the subject. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all women need Wikipedia articles. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could consider rephrasing this? Because as you wrote it, it comes across as an argument that we should be more willing to delete the article because the subject is female, which is both not in accordance with any of our policies and extremely offensive. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator of the first Afd, I thought there was not enough sources and the keep votes were overruled by more in-depth delete votes. I still stand by that in this second nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per comments in first AFD closed September 26, 2016. Hmlarson (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify which comments you find convincing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the detailed explanation by Piotrus convincing. We require reliable third party sources and over here it seems the sources are part of the society or a parish magazine. I do not see any claim of significance except for that gold medal - which itself seems to be a niche award and sourced to the society itself. Although the subject was in the pre-internet era and there was a possibility of non-English sources, what convinces me towards a delete is that it was deleted on the Polish Wikipedia itself where Polish speakers could analysed Polish sources as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Polish wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 10:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onam 2012 (album)[edit]

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

Claims no notability, fails WP:NALBUM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, that is a single, not an album. There is no indication that it has charted or has any notability. It also appears to be promotional in relation to the festival that the song is linked with. Karst (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, it is a single and it fails WP:NMUS and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 23:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per prev. comment by Anup.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Meets WP:ACADEMIC per consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tore Dybå[edit]

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

Self-written vanity page, doesn't meet the prof test Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak I think it's a bit harsh to just state that this is a vanity page that doesn't meet the prof. test. I thought that meeting the following notability criteria for academics was sufficient? " 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." The references provided substantiates this through their original, reliable sources showing 1) Ranked as no one on the world based on number of publications and number of citations and 2) receiving a Paper Impact award for the paper with the highest impact in the field during the last 10 years. I'd like to now why you think these facts do not meet the above stated notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toredy, please see WP:COI, WP:Autobiography, you should not be writing about yourself. I posted here because there is a claim of notability, and it's not suitable for speedy deletion. You are entitled to post a "keep" response here (start of sentence, bolded, following an asterisk) with your reasons as stated above, and it's then up to others to express their views. If it becomes clear that I've not got this right, I'll withdraw the nom and close this AFD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak, Thank you for your comment, I have read WP:COI, WP:Autobiography, and I understand them. If they trump notability, I will rest my case. But it doesn't seem fair given the thousands of similar, short pages about other (notable) academics. So, what I'd like to see, is that the moderators explain what it is with the two stated achievements that do not meet the academic notability guidelines. I'm just puzzled with what I experience as unfounded attacks...

Keep Writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. This seems to be a rare case where a notable person has written a pretty decent autobiography. Meets WP:ACADEMIC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is autobiographical promotion. The article lacks in mainstream, objective, unbiased sources. I think the contents of this article do not meet WP:N, but may be notable enough to be mentioned in an article about the research or relative subject matter. {MordeKyle} ☢ 19:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Jimfbleak, I could post a "keep" response. So, here it is: Although it's an autobiography, it should be clear from the awards section of the page that the person meets WP:ACADEMIC. I have also done my best to keep the formulations factual and neutral, as if I was writing about someone else. The claim that the article "lacks in mainstream, objective, unbiased sources" should be substantiated with due reference to WP:ACADEMIC and the sources provided in the awards section of the article. Tore (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep -- the article needs to be toned down to look less like a resume, but the subject appears to be notable, see for example author bio from Agile Software Development: Current Research and Future Directions. Most likely meets WP:ACADEMIC and / or WP:AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Messi Goals Career[edit]

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

Regardless of how notable a footballer is, a list of league goals is not notable (WP:NOTSTATS). While Wikipedia does have lists of goals scored, those are goals scored in international completion by footballers who are or were the top scorer for their nation. Anything worth keeping from this list can be merged into Lionel Messi. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 05:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 05:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 05:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do we have an article on his international goals? If not, could this article be refactored to that? Joseph2302 05:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joseph2302: List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then delete and redirect to that. Joseph2302 06:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even worth redirecting. Giant Snowman 07:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total statistical overload, definitely not needed. If by any chance it gets kept, needs a new title..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS, simply because someone has scored a large amount of goals does not mean we need an exhaustive listing of them. Furthermore, inclusion criteria for such a list a re difficult to pin down (e.g. why would we not include youth team games?). No need for a redirect either with the article title in mangled English and therefore an unlikely search term. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a statbook. Also hard to define as Fenix down noted. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Lionel Messi#Career statistics, but as pointed out the grammatically incorrect title makes it an unlikely search term – yep, I brought this to the attention of WikiProject Football here a few days ago and was planning to take the article to AfD based on the comments there, but you have beaten me to it. Aside from WP:NOTSTATS and the fact it is (mostly) unreferenced, someone pointed out that it's a bit suspicious that he seems to have scored every one of his goals before the opposition scored, if you read the table in its current form. And in any case these aren't all the goals of his career, just the Spanish La Liga ones, so the title is misleading. Richard3120 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. SLBedit (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James "Jim" Litten[edit]

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

Non-notable theatrical performer. A string of roles, but nothing worthy of note. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was assistant director of "A Chorus Line" and this is also a very famous Broadway story.

"On May 13th, at the curtain call, Nicol Williamson slapped dancer Jim Litten. As I recall, he smacked him across the bottom with the flat side of a sword. Williamson claims to have heard Litten say during the bows, "That was crap." Litten says he said "That's a wrap." Littens rump was sore for weeks!" :http://www.talkinbroadway.com/talkin/turkey_supreme.html

Barnonetwo (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)barnonetwo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnonetwo (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assistant Directors are not inherently notable. Evidence of significant coverage is needed. (And the anecdote in Talkin' Broadway, while amusing, is not significant coverage.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable stage actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normand Boucher[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a former mayor in a city of about 60K. That's certainly large enough that a well-sourced article about a mayor could be kept, but it's not large enough that he gets an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, if the resulting article is this bad: the only reference cited here is a press release from a charitable organization about him participating in a fundraising event staged by that organization, thus making it a primary source that cannot support notability, and the article reads very much more like a PR blurb that could have been copied and pasted directly from his own campaign literature rather than an encyclopedia article. The Medicine Hat News is not archived in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, so I can't do a repair job on this myself — I'm happy to withdraw this if somebody can locate enough coverage of him to source the article over WP:GNG, but it's not a keepable article in this state of substance and sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors of Medicine Hat are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Florenze(Constructed Language)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I am not certain that CSD A11 is applicable, so taking to AfD. Article was previously PRODed and declined. Safiel (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor who created the page, Redwars22, is the same person who submitted the material to here on October 3, so it's almost certain that the person who created the page is also the language's creator. On a side note I also note that the creator of the language is nearly identical to the two people who created Redstack, a fictitious company that creates "animated series, apps for your devices, blogs and apps about linguistics." I think it's likely that this is directly related given Redstack's emphasis on linguistics, the similarity in the creator name, and that Redwards22 is the same as one of the other fictitious companies listed on the Redstack page. This seems like it would certainly qualify for WP:A11. I'm willing to speedy it and defend it at DRV, if it came to that. Redwars22, Wikipedia is not a place to spread awareness of something you came up with one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I debated blocking them for a promotional username, however the company names aren't for anything real so I'm not going to - however the warning that Wikipedia is not a place to write about or promote things you created are still applicable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to go ahead and just delete this as something that the user created one day. I wanted to wait and see how others responded, but then went on vacation and didn't check Wikipedia. There's enough evidence here to suggest that this was something that was created by the editor and that this is their way of trying to promote their own work. It's cool that they came up with their own language, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote something that you came up with WP:ONEDAY. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshinte Prathikaaram: Original Score[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork. We already have venues to write about it at Maheshinte Prathikaaram (soundtrack), which also is not really needed, and Maheshinte Prathikaaram. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The music section of Maheshinte Prathikaaram was split to separate articles due to bloating (72kb then, WP:TOOBIG), which was pointed out in its GA review. The "score" and the "soundtrack" are two independent albums. Both has separate release dates, album covers, track duration, and two separate type of infobox. Hence two independent articles. --Charles Turing (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Logic! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. If you can find a reliable source or two, write it about in Maheshinte Prathikaaram (soundtrack) or Maheshinte Prathikaaram articles. Two albums of a single film are not totally independent of each other. Write in there that score album was released XX days after soundtrack or on DDMMYYYY. Gaana, Saavan, itunes, etc. are not going to justify this standalone piece. Note that, notability is not inherited. Anup [Talk] 23:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Needless article. And as per the concerns raised above. Charles Turing (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar (upcoming film)[edit]

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

This movie was alleged to happen about four years ago. The director has never directed a movie before and there is no credible source after 2013 which talks about the movie Robinhio84 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cancelled films that don't receive significant coverage are not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per TonyBallioni. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 05:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Films that have not been produced generally aren't notable. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the party is notable and sources exist. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Provincial Confederation of Regions Party[edit]

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

Article fails to cite sources. The party has never won elected office. Fails WP:ORG. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Further sourcing improvement is certainly still needed, but the article does not "fail to cite sources" — it has sources, and just needs more. And again, our standards for the notability of political parties do not require the party to have won seats; they merely require the party to be properly sourceable as having run candidates. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has been a registered party for over a quarter of a century, and fielded dozens of candidates. As seven original election articles in Wikipedia refer to this party, readers will be looking for more information. Deleting will not improve Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 02:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist and there's sufficient encyclopedic content to justify maintaining a separate article for the provincial party, rather than merging it back into Confederation of Regions Party of Canada. (Deletion would have been inappropriate in any case.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belayab Motors[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I could not locate reliable secondary sources to verify the notability of the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a passing mention in Kia Motors. Nordic Nightfury 10:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgamates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last nomination was discussed in 2006 and since then the criteria under WP:MUSIC have become stricter. In that context, the page does not list sufficient reliable sources or indicated notability. The long list of awards is inflated, the organisation that awards them (the Contemporary A Cappella Society) appears to be closely linked to the group. The overriding sense from the article is that this constitutes a college choir with little national profile, no chart success nor any international touring commitments. Karst (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BAND, which says that "Musicians or ensembles ... may be notable if ... [they have] won first, second or third place in a major music competition." This article lists multiple first-place finishes at the Contemporary A Cappella Recording Awards. Personally, I don't think that the standards at WP:NMUSIC are strict enough, but the guideline apparently reflects community consensus, so I feel compelled to vote "keep." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The completion is not major. No other criteria are met. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The competition is not notable enough to justify keeping this otherwise non-notable group. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Tiwari[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable film personality. Discuss. Nairspecht (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a borderline pass of WP:NACTOR as he has had prominent roles in television soap operas as well as a feature film, also the article has reference to reliable source Times of India . Atlantic306 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- nothing stands out about the subject; strictly a vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual does not have notability worthy of inclusion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the article on this Indian actor/film producer per meetig WP:BIO for WP:GNG is indeed met, deny it or not. Due diligence using WP:INDAFD gives us "Pawan Tiwari" "Pawan Tiwari" producer Pawan Tiwari... missed by some, it's definitely enough to show notability to India is met, even if not to the UnitedStates.. and that's just fine. WHofailed to find Times of India (1), Times of India (2), Free Press Journal, Mid-Day, Times of India (3), Telly Chakkar, Mumbai Mirror, Times of India (4), and others. Sheesh. If this were a US actor/producer there would be no question. To K.e.coffman, Sportsfan 1234, and Dane2007... may I ask what your own WP:BEFORE found, or did you judge by appearances???Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a note: the nominator has been indef-blocked for sock-puppetry, so this being brought here is itself suspect in the first place. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

~~Comment -- the article is still very unconvincing, and I still advocate deletion.~~ K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rsp Fine to feel so, but when presented with sources to meet WP:GNG, it is usually found by a closer that needing work is not a valid deletion rationale for a shown-as-improvable topic... specially when the topic is brought to AFD by then-blocked puppeteer whose entire edit history needs evaluation. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the number of reliable sources outlined above mean WP:GNG is passed, the article can be improved rather than deleted Atlantic306 (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- based on available reviews, but I hope someone fixes up the WP:UGLY article :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lobachevsky (song)[edit]

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

~~Nonnotable silly joke of a song Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

withdrawn After David Eppstein rescued the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It will be a sad day when all silly jokes have been removed from Wikipedia and only serious affairs are left. This is indeed a silly joke, but I think a notable one. It's included in the ODQ, and a column in Billboard was devoted to it some 50 years after it was published. That, I think, demonstrates both ongoing significance and a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- well, thanks for rescuing it. I put it for deletion not because it was silly, but because the article demonstrated no notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references show that the song is notable and we do not delete articles just because the topic is "silly". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appium[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient coverage in RS to meet GNG. —swpb^T 15:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More than enough coverage in reliable sources [6]. Meatsgains (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated for speedy but admin removed since article had changed since last AfD. The awards it has received are not notable, but that is expected for a niche product. No other real coverage. Already explained on talk page that the other refs do not meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Selenium is a niche product too. What about deleting Selenium entry too? The only difference is that selenium is fot testing web on desktop windows or linux and appium is for testing applications or web on android or iOSVatadoshu^french 11:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Selenium is a niche product, but it meets WP:GNG so there's not need to delete. See WP:OSE for a refutation of your argument. However, if you would like to nominate it for deletion, I'd be happy to participate in that discussion, but be sure to do WP:BEFORE prior to nominating. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Walter Görlitz WP:GNG? selenium sources are not very good: groups.google.com, https://newcircle.com (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/newcircle.com); and www.aosabook.org (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/aosabook.org). I do not find notability in selenium sources even if i think it is notable). This one http://www.atmarkit.co.jp/ait/articles/1506/02/news017.html or this one http://www.infoq.com/cn/news/2015/07/mtsc-appium are better rank than that selenium sources. A book on it https://books.google.fr/books?id=bQoDCAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=appium&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiznp2w0tLPAhVFOxoKHabLAx8Q6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=appium&f=false and http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/appium-tool with good alexia rank http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/indiatimes.comVatadoshu^french 15:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Already explained on the article's talk page. A self-published book, a group discussion, etc. Perhaps you should read GNG before suggesting anything again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Vatadoshu^french 15:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC) (I am the creator of the page )[reply]
- It should be noted that the above comment is from the page creator. —swpb^T 12:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khar clan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonverifiable notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V; no sources listed nor provided at this AfD. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverified information. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cedarsong Nature School. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin K. Kenny[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources that would lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found a review of her book Forest Kindergartens: The Cedarsong Way here, which describes her as the founder of the Forest kindergarten - "The arrival of this program (forest kindergarten), its success and the publicity it has received is undoubtedly due to the program's founder, Erin Kenny.", so if more useable sources aren't found a line or two could about her could be added at that article's History section. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references integrated in the article and some clean up done. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmlarson has done a great job showing the forest kindergarten movement is notable. Kenny, not so much. John from Idegon (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Thanks John! She co-founded the first school in the U.S. and clearly is a leading figure for the movement/educational philosophy. GNG clearly met. Article could use further clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. One of the sources says "is considered by forest educators as the mother of the American movement, " - notable enough for me. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Updated)~~Merge and redirect to Forest_kindergarten#History~~ There is hardly any secondary coverage about the subject in reliable independent sources (if there is, please show it, because I cannot see). The subject is best known for founding Cedarsong Nature School which makes it a BLP1E. The coverage is entirely about the school with passing mentions/quotes by the subject. Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:WHYN there shouldn't be a separate page for the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I will go with a delete here. The merge target isn't really appropriate and I don't see a need for a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny cites on GS indicate little impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per my comments above, the sources being proffered for her notability are only passing mention of her, not the coverage in detail required to show notability. Realistically, how can we write a reasonably sourced biography of her when the only info we have is on her involvement with the educational movement? She's alive..... info such as her birth, her family, her education must be included and when all we have info on is the last few years, that cannot happen. If there is any info on the movement that isn't already in the appropriate article, by all means add it, but I see no need for a redirect at this time. John from Idegon (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cedarsong Nature School per WP:BIO1E. No independent notability evident but redirects are cheap and the school appears to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of her over time. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least redirect to preserve article edit history. I think there is adequate indicia of notability, and this is more than BIO1E, she is a founder of a new movement in preschool education and the movement is worldwide. This is a big deal and she is a leader within it with a longstanding history of involvement, (note [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. Montanabw^(talk) 06:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect instead as what's listed above is still not what is actually expected from a genuine article nor is what's in the current article convincing, therefore there's also then nothing for noticeable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moaz AlShami[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

It appears at first glance that most (if not all) of the references are reports written by the subject of the article, rather than independent published reliable sources talking about the subject. This may need further investigation by editors who can read the foreign language sources given as references. David Biddulph (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent in-depth coverage of the person. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After further examination of some of the refs I see that they are not written by the subject, so I withdraw the nomination. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to afd this article but sat too long on it and when did, saw an error that an afd tag is already present. I take over this nomination (since original is withdrawn). Delete this article for failing WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 03:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 03:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 03:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It fails WP:JOURNALIST and there has not been much written about this guy. If he does something in future that gets a lot of media attention and notability, then the article should stay but this has not happened. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 03:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though the original nomination is withdrawn, WP:WITHDRAWN states that the discussion itself should continue if anyone has made any substantive comments. This discussion meets that criteria, so it will continue. I have no comment on the article itself or whether or not it should be deleted. — Gestrid (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no in-depth coverage of this subject by independent reliable sources. No elements of WP:JOURNALIST satisfied. Gab4gab (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a well known journalist in the Middle East and has done several reports for his coverage inside Syria. In fact, many of the worldwide media channels have used his reports and the videos captured by his cameraman. Nour0928 (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Nour0928 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Some of his videos used by media around the world, and the video of Syrian white hamlets Become a global because of him, then Syrian white hamlets nominate for Nobel prize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taljazairi (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taljazairi (talk • contribs)

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

Delete the article is unencyclopedic, and reads like an editorial, not a wikipedia entry. Civlover (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello –This article was written about the Journalist as a bio, so if it was posted in the wrong place, apologies in advance. Would like to keep this page if at all possible. Could you recommend how to post this article or the steps needed to keep an article about a known person on wiki? Thanks for your assistance and guidance to help keep this page alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taljazairi (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junius P. Rodriguez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable individual. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:NACADEMIC. Also fails WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rodriguez has achieved a strong reputation in history scholarship, with many reviews in leading scholarly journals praising his work as editor of major reference books in history of slavery. He won the top academic award of the American Library Association for a reference book--they give ONE book the award every year, so it's a top recognition for scholarship. He is cited in obver 200 scholarly books and articles according to google.scholar Visibility among editors = good, as numerous scholarly journals have called on him to review major monographs (including . Journal of Southern History, Journal of Social History, History: Reviews of New Books, Louisiana History, Southern Studies, Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, Journal of Illinois History and Journal of the Early Republic. That's national recognition. Rjensen (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable under WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR as expert is his field and editor of notable books(s). The ALA listing is sufficient to show that. (But that he has reviewed books for various major journals is not only not an indication of importance, but not even worth mentioning in the article--such reviews are very minor pieces of work, and we never include them in academic bios. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I don't see what has changed since the previous AfD; clearly notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable works and sufficient independent coverage. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does not well-establish the notability the keep voters seem to identify. I don't blame Muboshgu for making the nomination of such poorly-done article. I would otherwise suggest userfying this entry so it can be cleaned up before returning to mainspace if not for a growing keep consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article a bit. I believe the subject's notability is a bit clearer now. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list of books published or edited by him should be sufficient to warrant preserving this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear what the consensus is. I withdraw. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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