Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 April	25 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2BOT Physical Modeling Technologies[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. The two references are press releases. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just about zero coverage. Passung mention in a 2011 Seattle Times article, that's about it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Thakar[edit]

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

Non-notable artist.I de-prodded it myself per User talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Neha Thakar. Winged Blades^Godric 15:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, the depth of coverage about the subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC at this time, and not finding evidence of WP:ARTIST being met. The subject has received some coverage, such as this and this mention in Hindustan Times and two short paragraphs of coverage in this Indian Express article, but not finding much else. If additional sources are found, feel free to ping me to this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to show passing of notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MyPustak[edit]

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

Article is not suitable and do not adhere to various Wikipedia policies. It should be deleted. Press coverage is not substantial. Light2021 (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CORP, this article is suitable for organization category. See my justification on talk page. --Gelato7311 (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam & no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete - As discussed on the article's talk page, I have many doubts about the quality of sources, but do not read Hindi. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having read the exchanges between User:Grayfell and User:Gelato7311 on the article Talk page and also sought other sources using the Wikiproject India search tool, I am not seeing anything better than the usual start-up coverage. (Nor - noting the frequent updates to the site's Alexa ranking in the article - does a position around 24,000th in the site's own market indicate more.) Moving to draft could be an option, but perhaps only if there was a realistic prospect of solid evidence of notability being attained in the near future, as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG, but nothing indicates that to be likely. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very unfortunate to see that how a team full on non-hindi (Hindi is a language of 260 million Native speakers) people decided that hindi articles have no significant coverage for MyPustak. Anyways, It was my first attempt on Wikipedia and I wrote about a genuine organization with all possible information I could gather from internet. Accepting this deletion as I have no choice. --Gelato7311 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Great Malts of Scotland[edit]

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

Non-notable advertising campaign. Google does turn up some other citations - but if offered this case of malts as a freebie, I would certainly have made an enthusiastic write-up or two. They would not, however, have amounted to WP:INDEPENDENT coverage. Narky Blert (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - there's not one Islay malt in that package - I wonder why not? That island has eight distilleries. Could it be because Bacardi owns none of them? Narky Blert (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional content, no reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely promotional. Even a trade journal, Whiskey Wash, called this "a promotional push." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend, Boyfriend[edit]

Dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PizzaLuvver (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has survived 7 nominations already; anyone remember the most recent of these?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editor is bringing several articles to Afd that have survived several previous discussions, with no indication whether he's even aware. If he is, if she's intentionally going after such articles and bringing them here without properly formatting his Afds to conceal the many past keep closes, that's disruptive editing. I'm assuming it's accidental. Which amounts to still being disruptive if it continues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the template will link to more than five past AfDs, but here are the fourth and seventh discussions of Girlfriend, from 2006 and 2008. The fifth and sixth were each within two months of the fourth, and both closed as "speedy keep". There seems to be only one previous nomination of Boyfriend, in 2004.

Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on outcomes of last seven AfDs DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the last AfD and it was a good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While consensus can change, there is no sign that it has. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protologism[edit]

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

Delete. Word is a neologism. Not used much outside of Wikipedia and Wiktionary. And the article is almost entirely about the word itself. PizzaLuvver (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This Afd is not showing the previous three discussions but I see it was kept twice last year. The closing admin gave a detailed explanation of the !vote and the options in the most recent Afd, which had a much more detailed nomination rationale. PizzaLuvver was not a participant at that last discussion--which was close to no consensus, the closer said. Perhaps PizzaLuvver is not aware of it. I just don't see the need to reopen this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with everything that Shawn in Montreal said. Toveswuu hed (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There was a long discussion resulting in keep just a few months ago, and the nominator doesn't give indication to have been aware of it. Nothing seems to have changed since then and I don't see the point of trying to rehash the same discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on outcome of other recent AfDs DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The last AfD (keep) was in December of 2016. No new arguments have been presented in this AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvani Yadavalli[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. Dancer who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and or WP:ENT. Google reveals no sources that are independent and zero Google news hits. Sources in the article appear to be mainly about shows she has been in rather than the dancer herself. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an excessively ornamental fan page & no decent sources; no value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what looks like a lot of sources only confirms minor achievements. created by a single purpose editor so likely to be self promotion. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endsville (band)[edit]

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

I've been unable to find any reviews or feature articles about this band or its one album. I have also tagged the article about the lead singer Keith Jolie. If that one is kept, this article should be merged into it; otherwise, it should be deleted unless another editor has more success in finding reliable sources to reference. The CBC link is a user-created profile, not an interview or a review. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, in hopes of finding something to support WP:N notability. I found a few mentions of a Calgary band called Endsville, from the 1990s, but based on their location and their lineup it does not appear to be the same band as this one. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, I suspect that even those sources don't actually point at a band named Endsville. Huevos Rancheros — a band based in, guess where, Calgary, in, guess when, the 1990s — released an album called Endsville in 1993. Which explains my initial "hey, wait, I know that name" reaction to the title of this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually, quite unexpectedly, was able to find a couple of glancing acknowledgements of this band's existence in a ProQuest search — one WP:ROUTINE concert listing for them playing Lee's Palace in 2007, and a brief namecheck in an article about bassist Morgan Phillips writing a short play for SummerWorks in 2008. But neither of those things confer an WP:NMUSIC pass in and of themselves, and I can't find any other information about them that would. As always, a band is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because they exist; they must actually pass an NMUSIC criterion for something, and be sourceable over WP:GNG for the achievement of that something. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Housing Inequality in the Bay Area, California[edit]

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

Yet another POV essay from UC Berkeley. St Anselm (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTESSAY. bojo | talk 21:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated above, per WP:NOTESSAY. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are not on the narrow topic of the article, and so notability is not demonstrated. The whole page is a WP:Synthesis and therefore WP:original research. Perhaps the content could be transwikied to Wikiversity. Perhaps some content could be merged into Housing discrimination (United States) which does appear to be a notable topic, as some sources here demonstrate. The page is pushing a particular point of view, but in itself is not a reason to delete like the other justifications are. It is a pity that students put in so much work writing this without checking first whether this kind of content is suitable for Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Jolie[edit]

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

I looked hard to find some media coverage of this singer/songwriter. There is an article in his hometown newspaper that isn't on line, but that's okay. Another newspaper has a couple of lines stating that he performed at a festival. The CBC references are user-created profiles (not working right now because the site is undergoing changes, but they'll be back). Snapd is a magazine that carries event listings, and pages of photos of events with captions - not reviews or detailed reports. The National Archives link proves that his album exists, and was published in Canada, but the archives takes every such item, not just notable ones. I couldn't find any album or performance reviews, or any interviews or features in magazines. I also couldn't find any news articles or reviews about his band Endsville. I'd be please to withdraw this nomination if I've missed something. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic pass of any WP:NMUSIC criterion, and as nominator notes the referencing is not solid enough to clear WP:GNG. And I came up completely empty on a ProQuest search, which means there's no discernible prospect of salvaging it. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Goryunova[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Having works of art on display in galleries does not equate to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 100% promotional, no evidence that Goryunova has been the subject of significant critical attention in reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Pediaorg (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contactpage Dloh cierekim 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable artist. A "recognition award" from the Orlando, FL public library, and other minor events do not establish the subject's historical importance.Netherzone (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katapult (roller coaster)[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG litmus test with very little coverage in one known reliable source (RCDB.com), hardly more than a passing mention. It does not require a standalone article, and the only content here so far is non-notable ride specifications and some comments that are clearly original research. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing meaningful in the article to establish notability and I couldn't find anything reliable and verifiable in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dudhi plant[edit]

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

This is a set index on common plant names. There are two entries. Neither entry is for a plant with the common name "Dudhi plant". Neither plant is known as "Dudhi" or Dudhi plant" in English. Both plants are known as "Dudhi" (not "Dudhi plant") in Hindi, where the word "Dudhi" is actually spelled in Devanagari, not English letters. In sum: Neither entry is known as "Dudhi plant" in any language. Neither entry is known as "Dudhi" in English. Neither entry is spelled "Dudhi" in the language where it is a word. Wikipedia is not Google Translate. Get rid of it. Anomalocaris (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per OP. Dloh cierekim 18:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and doodhi that redirects here. I created the SIA because dudhi plant and doodhi were redirects pointing to different targets that both mentioned "dudhi". en.wiki doesn't need to be a multi-language dictionary, but it shouldn't have variant transliterations from non-English languages pointing to different articles. Plantdrew (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also Delete Doodhi per Plantdrew says OP. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lorin O'Neil Caccamise[edit]

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

A currently active figure with this degree of absence from the Google-indexed Web would clearly fall short of WP:GNG. Can anyone find sources that would support a finding of notability? The article gives no indication of any distinction that would lead to meeting WP:BIO or WP:NATHLETE in particular. Largoplazo (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any citations beyond the single one cited in the article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've asked the author for additional sources. At first glance, it seems like there may have been some information at the US Skating Hall of Fame that has since been removed from their site. The cultural exchange bit seems especially interesting as well, and would surely have gotten some coverage in 1961. I dunno, it feels like there might be something here if sources turn up. No recommendation, just yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comemnt I searched the NY Times archives online, and found no mentions. I searched http://proskatinghistoricalfoundation.org/ and they mention the 1961 trip of the Ice capades to Russia, but list no individual performers. Nor is ONeil listed anywhere on that site. DES ^(talk) 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1958/03/29/83405424.html?action=click&contentCollection=Archives&module=ArticleEndCTA&region=ArchiveBody&pgtype=article&pageNumber=23 The New York Times of March 29 1958, p 23, lists "Lorin Caccamise" as third in the Men's junior national results. Perhaps searches on this form of the name will bear fruit. DES ^(talk) 19:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Dennis (designer)[edit]

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

It's a relatively common name, so researching is a tad difficult, but I can't find any in-depth sourcing on a designer by this name. Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale, "I believe good references have been added which support the page". So here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a shame that there isn't very much material to work with. I'm not familiar enough with Ian Dennis other work to decide if we should have an article about him. The only claim to notability is the NT logo, it seems. The source is actually an excerpt from a book Sinclair, Mark (2014-01-01). TM the untold stories behind 29 classic logos. London: Laurence King Publishing. ISBN 9781780676364.. I suppose it could be merged into an article about FHK Henrion (but that would have to focus on the firm, not the person). There's another version of the story here. Additionally, there is the issue with some of the unsourced material, which doesn't appear to be source-able and makes me think that the author, Ianindent may have access to unpublished knowledge and is perhaps associated with Indent Design, as the user name implies. Mduvekot (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete significance unclear beyond NT logo. Perhaps NT logo deserves an article (as the 10th best logo per one source). I wasn't able to find any significant sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that the only significant work of note is one logo. To my mind, this is not enough to establish criteria for an article on the designer. Seems self-promotional as described above. Netherzone (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on the application of sodium chloride Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis Debourou[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that he had played in the Benin Premier League. This claim is both unverified, and does not confer notability as the BPL is not confirmed as fully pro. As such the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Still too soon at best. Not sure there is a need to salt given the last AfD was nearly 4 years ago. Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ffarquhar[edit]

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

Largely unreferenced fancruft. Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Quasar G ^{t - c} 14:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – yeah, that looks like WP:FANCRUFT all right! But definitely insufficiently sourced to establish independent notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment and nominator's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with the Fictional locations in Thomas & Friends page. Has the appearance of Fancruft but the page could potentially be verified by The Island of Sodor: Its People, History and Railways (Rev. W. Awdry, 1987) with other places expanded on the suggested page by Sodor Reading between the lines (C.Awdry 2005). Furthermore, there is a WikiProject Thomas which has started where this information could placed within. Other book series have their histories detailed too, note Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. GimliBob (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)[edit]

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

Does not require a separate article from Black Lives Matter. Cannot be rendered neutral by editing. See Wikipedia is not a web host. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This appears to be a good-faith educational effort which however cannot be reconciled with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Unapologetically Black (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle) because the same rationale applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Transgender Affirming (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle) because the same rationale applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intergenerational (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle) should be added as well. – Athaenara ✉ 13:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! From what I can see, the students involved with this are OK with removing the pages per the remarks here, where AngelicBeaver wrote "You can delete them whenever you like." My only request would be that we could e-mail a copy of the content to the editors involved so that they can show their professor their work. I'm also posting on the class's dashboard page about this and giving a suggestion on an alternative way to incorporate this content (albeit in a different format) in Wikipedia. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that these topics should be discussed within Black Lives Matter rather than as separate articles. However, if retained, the words "Guiding Principle" in the titles should be lower case. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTESSAY. It's hard to see what content could be kept in the main article. Black Lives Matter has a simple list of the guiding principles - perhaps some of them need at least to be defined. St Anselm (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These articles (there appear to be three linked to this AfD) could be repurposed/expanded to Diversity in activism, Trans-inclusive, Unapologetically Black if enough reliable sources can be found, and the concept is not sufficiently covered elsewhere under another name.--Pharos (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree in principle with User:Pharos that the articles may be capable of repurposing, but that would amount to blowing them up and starting over. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Black Lives Matter article has a simple list of the principles and could be augmented with reliably-sourced text on their meaning. With sufficient sources, it could become necessary to create a more specific article such as Guiding principles of the Black Lives Matter movement which could explore different perspectives from inside and outside the movement in line with usual considerations for due weight, reliability of sources, NPOV, etc, and to have a simple summary in the parent article. Unfortunately, the essays here are not the basis for such an article as the task set was inherently non-neutral. I feel sad for the student editors Burgesspfc and AngelicBeaver because they are stuck trying to explore meaning of principles from the movement's perspective (the task set) and when policy requires neutral coverage of perspectives in accord with their weight in sources. Some of the sources used would be useful for an article but the content is not. Essays for tertiary education often require synthesis of information, advocacy / arguing for a perspective, and original ideas and thought, and all of these are inconsistent with encyclopaedic writing. These essays are not the basis for acceptable articles, a blank page would be an easier starting point. If the students want to persist, there is a notable topic here and there are editors who would help, but given this is an assignment and the semester is nearly over, I will not be surprised if this does not occur. It is a shame when instructor-set work on Wikipedia is incompatible with Wikipedia policy, as seems to be the case here, and the Education Program is already planning to look at this case and the Environmental Justice case over summer – so hopefully we will not see cases like this arise again. EdChem (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the pages nominated here are promotion, propaganda, spamcruftisement, you name it (the main BLM page itself suffers from this as well). In a situation like this, a reminder that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just another free content hosting service, is needed. I do not have the patience Seraphimblade demonstrated at User talk:Burgesspfc#April 2017 but I link it here as a fine example of the guidance these students need and are apparently not getting from their own instructor(s). I hope at least some of the students participating in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Texas at San Antonio/Black Lives Matter - Critical Perspectives (Spring 2017) are aware of and following this discussion. – Athaenara ✉ 11:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well these pages which were previously deleted ...

Black Women (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
Black Villages (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
Globalism (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
Collective Value (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
Empathy (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
Black Families (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)

... just to flesh out the context a bit more fully. – Athaenara ✉ 17:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Basic[edit]

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

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

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for anything, and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. Their albums were self-released on Bandcamp, so the fact that there are two of them does not pass NMUSIC #5 (which requires a major or large-indie label), and the video game soundtrack is for an indie game on Steam, not a notable release that would satisfy NMUSIC #10. And even if either of those claims were accepted as notability, NMUSIC still requires the claim to be reliably sourced to media coverage, and does not confer an exemption from that just because the claim has been asserted -- but the article is sourced only to their own self-published Bandcamp page. I'm also bundling their album, as it makes and sources no credible claim of notability besides existing either. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a band automatically gets to have an article just because their own presence on social networking platforms proves that they exist -- certain specific standards of notability and sourceability have to be achieved for an article to become earned, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find coverage to suggest that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow talk 02:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Brown (actor)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and advertorially toned WP:AUTOBIO of an actor, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. There's enough here that he would probably be eligible for an article if it could be sourced properly, but the references here are his IMDb profile and glancing acknowledgements of his existence in coverage that fails to be about him -- and, as always, even if he can be shown to clear NACTOR the path to getting a Wikipedia article still doesn't pass through writing it himself. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody else can do better than this, but an actor doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article just because roles are listed in it; he gets one when he can be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support one. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources show the indepth coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Llamas With Hats[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 15:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any RSes after a Google search indicated the series is not notable. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has a bit of coverage in reliable sources, but it might be better to merge to an article on its producer, Filmcow, or their other more notable show Charlie the Unicorn. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax DES ^(talk) 23:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DWAO-AM[edit]

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

Per Nmedia, upcoming radio stations are not notable. No sources L3X1 (distant write) 15:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 The creation of a new clear channel station on AM, in 2017, would be a much bigger deal and have plenty of sources, including the country's licensing authority. Nothing here suggests this is a real station and the original article creator has been blocked. The original station on this frequency was only licensed for 25,000 watts, making it very unlikely a 50,000 watt application would be accepted. Nate • (chatter) 16:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment The linked page, DWAN, has been part of a back-and-forth between socks of Bertrand101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and restoring editors in the last half-year with the same content here. Definitely think we've been had; doing the G3 myself. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Giganti[edit]

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

Other than a few brushes with the law, and a premature death, the subject is only noted for losing a television cooking competition. Fails WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC) WWGB (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's not really much more to say. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tragic, not notable. should probably be blanked per BLP. Dloh cierekim 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mao (singer)[edit]

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

No evidence that this is in any way a notable person. Appears to be a normal guy doing a variety of jobs publishing his own records and reading the traffic news on TV. The only ref shows that he exists but shows no evidence of notability. Self promotion perhaps ? Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the official biographer. All information provided is 100% correct. I would be extremely grateful if you could kindly let me know how to solve any doubt\alarm in order to finalise a clean page. Many thanks for the kind cooperation in advance. Maoelarivoluzione—Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A large portion of the article has been removed as a copyvio, leaving the large list that's currently there. — Gestrid (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User was paid to promote. Fails WP:GNG CRAuser (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent reliable sources have been provided. Almost a speedy delte as promotional. DES ^(talk) 01:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost promotional, No significant sources provided.Wiki Cell (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — kashmiri ^TALK 11:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allah Dino Khawaja[edit]

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

A high-ranking police officer in one of Pakistan's provinces. A few press mentions of his name, usually in the context of WP:ROUTINE reporting, but bothing more substantial to help ascertain notability. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject surely pass WP:GNG. There are many references available online which can be used to curate a decent bio on the subject. --Saqib (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep, the article is sufficiently referenced, if required more references can be sought from the newspapers or web and it’s about a notable person. Instead of deletion, Please improve it. Jogi 007 (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my understanding is his role is head of provincial police for a province of Pakistan. I think head of state-level/provincial-level police force is generally an inherently notable position. By comparison, here in Australia heads of state police forces are clearly notable (see e.g. List of Commissioners of New South Wales Police, Template:Chief Commissioners of Victoria Police, etc), and I think the same would apply in other countries with state/provincial polices. Added to that there are plenty of media mentions of him, I think it is a clear keep. SJK (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This last point raised by SJK has convinced me to withdraw the nomination. Closing in a moment. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50 Years of Doctor Who: Preachrs Podcast Live[edit]

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

Subtle promotion for Benjamin Maio Mackay. The author, AnActorsFriend, has spent their entire time on Wikipedia promoting Mackay multiple articles as well as creating other promotional articles (e.g. Great Detectives of Old Time Radio Live) and trying to get the Benjamin Maio Mackay article undeleted.

This article is promotional in tone ("The critical reception of all 4 shows was exceptional") and the references are in the majority either websites owned and/or operated by Mackay himself ( preachrspodcast.net, youtube, and facebook) or simply social media event websites (wherevent.com, allevents.in) none of which are WP:RS. One doesn't even mention Mackay (ausdalek.com) Justeditingtoday (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability and seems promotional. Dunarc (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable commentary on pop culture. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched and was unable to find RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:A7 by User:Brookie. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O. I. Ogedegbe[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Clearly not notable. No need for debate. Darreg (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LIFO (magazine)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP Kleuske (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965[edit]

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

These articles are arbitrary lists which are definitely indiscriminate collections of information contravening WP:WHIM. A test discussion for one such list in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of parliamentary speakers in the Americas in 1984 resulted in unanimous consensus to delete.

The following pages are being nominated:

Let the discussion commence! Amisom (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging of editor who contributed to the previous discussion: @David Tornheim:. Amisom (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. 12:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging of editor who contributed to the previous discussion: @Bearcat:. Amisom (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since so many articles are about to go, I think we should give Mbakkel2 a chance to defend them before we DELETE. Amisom Could you put a second notice about this WP:AfD similar to the one that is on Mbakkel2's talk page here: User_talk:Mbakkel2#Nomination_of_List_of_parliamentary_speakers_in_Africa_in_1965_for_deletion? I think one additional notice with the list of articles would be sufficient. I do think that editor deserves a proper notice. I would do it, but I don't have time at the moment to figure out the best language. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amisom (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Amisom has to delete those lists too List_of_state_leaders_in_2015 etc. I wrote the above-mentioned articles to highlight the existence of parliamentary speakers. --Mbakkel2 (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. As I pointed out in the first discussion, the speaker of a parliament or congress is certainly a noteworthy position within the political structure of each country — but unlike national heads of state and government, it's not a role that involves crossnational collaboration with the speakers of other countries' legislatures. Justin Trudeau has to meet with and work with Theresa May and Angela Merkel and Donald Trump and François Hollande on a fairly regular basis — but Geoff Regan does not have to meet with or work with Paul Ryan or John Bercow or Norbert Lammert. So a cross-national list of the world's legislative speakers is not a thing people need or are looking for, because there's no substantive need to directly compare the incumbencies across national borders. The fact that the nation-specific lists are categorized together in Category:Chairs of lower houses is as much cross-referencing as the topics actually require, because the existence of the positions is all the cross-referencing that the positions have in reality. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Greene (baseball)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASE. Much too soon for this 17-year-old. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Searched for Hunter Green instead of Greene. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P. Alberto Sanchez[edit]

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

Unnotable author and film director/producer who fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both books listed at Amazon are, in fact, self-published. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. As noted above his books are self-published....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazon and IMDb aim to be complete, indiscriminate listings. Wikipedia is meant to limit content to subjects that have recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources here show no coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire LLC[edit]

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

Three is a claim of significance here, although sourced to a deadlink, it could presumably be found off-line. Therefore I declined the A7 speedy. But it doesn't seem enough to establish notability. This article has been tagged for notability issues since 2011, and has not been improved significantly, beyond removing advertising. Nor could I find any RS establishing notability, or even any independent RS that mentioned the subject, in a quick google search. DES ^(talk) 08:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 08:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appearance in a top-100 small businesses list does not provide encyclopaedic notability. Searches return little more than basic listings; no evidence that the firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems insignificant just from the description. is advert. quick BEFORE search doesn't bring up much.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. No indication it is anything more than a unremarkable local business. MB 00:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks quality content and credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harly Wise[edit]

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

Deletion requested via OTRS by individual purporting to be article subject (identity not verified). Please consider WP:NFOOTY and WP:BBLP. No opinion by nominator. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has played in against a fully professional club against another fully professional club in a competitive competition, so meets WP:NFOOTY. As for WP:BBLP, well the only vandalism is from an IP trying to blank the page, presumably they are the individual purporting to be article subject. Can't see why they would want it deleted, though I guess it would be even stranger if someone was pretending to be the subject and trying to get it removed.--Echetus Xe 10:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - player passes WP:NFOOTBALL having appeared in an EFL Cup match for Hartlepool, a fully professional side. No obvious reasons apparent why the deletion has been requested. Kosack (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability for footballers is a minumum guidelines. It does not require us to have articles on everyone who played in a fully professional game. With someone of such a low notability, privacy concerns should win the day and we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NFOOTBALL, no reasons given for deletion request. Re: John Pack Lambert's comment above, I might agree if the OTRS identity was verified (you are given the opportunity to verify your identity when you contact OTRS). Without a confirmed identity, the filer might be Harly Wise or it might be someone wanting to vandalize Wikipedia by nuking the Harly Wise article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - agree, unless the OTRS is verified. We've got enough people who do odd things for motives we don't understand. The IP who was trying to blank this article the other day geolocates to western London - so might be. But who knows. Nfitz (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Existential risk from artificial ignorance[edit]

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

The topic of this article is essentially redundant with existential risk from artificial general intelligence. There is no concept of 'artificial ignorance' that is covered as per WP:GNG, nor have I personally ever heard the term outside of the comic series and the blog post linked in the article, neither of which provide any sort of clear explanation or discussion or notability. The other sources in the article refer to fairly disparate ideas, e.g. cybersecurity, environmental disasters, bots, superintelligence, and so on, which are presented as all part of a general concept of 'artificial ignorance' when the sources do not support such an aggregation or idea. So it's effectively original research. Nothing worth merging either, IMO. K.Bog 04:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A better article already exists, as noted in nomination. "Artificial Ignorance" as a term stems from unreliable sources such as the citations to a webcomic and a Hindu's blog. ValarianB (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A superior article already exists, as mentioned in the AfD nomination. The concept of "Artificial Ignorance" is not supported by reliable sources. desmay (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael (TV series)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a TV series, which consists of nothing but an episode list with no actual article body, and which has been flagged as a possible WP:HOAX. It doesn't google, but I'll be fair and acknowledge that the title "Michael" is awfully generic and could simply disappear behind a lot of other things (for instance, even if this does exist Google's geolocated searching would steer me as a Canadian toward Michael: Tuesdays and Thursdays instead of this...and hell, even Family Ties could overpower it just because that show had two actors named Michael in its cast.) It also doesn't help that all the names listed in the article (director Michael Thomas, writer Alex Flanders, guest stars Augusta Popova and Debby Ripley) link to dab pages rather than articles about writers or actors or directors. So I'm definitely getting a hint of bull excrement here, but not solid enough to speedy it without a second opinion. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that this article about a TV series fails to mention what country the show is from, what network airs it, or the names of any of the principal cast members leads me to think that this show exists only in the mind of the article's creator. I'm thinking it's a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my searching came up with nothing when I used the names of episodes, so I don't think it is even a YouTube series. The past form by this writer has also been similar fabricated episode lists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing at all on the unique names Oleg Chumack, Victor Countryman, or Rita Zhadan. And the blue links go to first names only. Nothing can be verified. MB 05:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As probable hoax. We should look into what else the creator got into here. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- His other fake TV show creations have already been deleted. In fact, one of them, Attempts & Errors, had the same basic plot albeit with different episodes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely made-up! Could not find a single shred of evidence to support either the show or the depicted plots. TopCipher (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like everyone else, I tried to find references to this but failed (though the extremely common title doesn't help). However all the links are to dab pages or generic articles about names, and obvious details like where the show was broadcast are omitted. Additionally, every one of this editor's contributions seem to have been reverted or speedy deleted (see his contribution history and talk page). Put together, these things lead me to conclude that it's a hoax. Neiltonks (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, y'all. After investigating the creator's deleted contributions more carefully (something which hadn't occurred to me to do yesterday), there's a much more solid case for speedying as a hoax — the past "shows" typically included fake network information ("YBC" or "Monday's Channel"), along with repetition of some of the same actor and crew names present here (Oleg Chumack, Victor Countryman and Michael Thomas recurred most commonly.) So I'm comfortable that there's now enough evidence to withdraw the discussion (we don't need seven more days of WP:SNOW) and just speedy this as a confirmed WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Staffan Lindeberg[edit]

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

Not a notable person Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lindeberg's death last year caused a number of obituaries, both internationally and locally in Sweden. I'm posting links to sample of them here, hoping they might be useful for determining his notability. The first three links are in English, the remaining in Swedish. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] /FredrikT (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first four are blog postings from people in the paleo community. the 2nd two are from the local paper; the first is kind of obituary-y while the second is more a blog posting reminisce. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth link is hardly just to some individual within the paleo community. It's an article in an online magazine about diabetes, edited by a physician and teacher at the university hospital of the University of Gothenburg. /FredrikT (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. probably meets WP:PROF as an expert in his field, on the basis of a widely held general bnok he wrote, published by Wiley, a very important mainstream academic publisher. [7]. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass both WP:PROF#C1 (eight publications with >100 citations on Google scholar) and WP:GNG (the Swedish-language obituaries posted above by FredrikT; I agree with Jytdog that the English ones aren't worth much.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geotech portfolio[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Apparently the creator wants to write an article about one particular geotechnical sample and how it will be analyzed. I don't know why the article is titled "Geotechnical Portfolio" but from the header "James Huff - FGCU - Geothechnical Engineering 1 - Dr. Kunberger - CRN10385" this appears to be a school lab report or paper for the Geotechnical Engineering 1 course at Florida Gulf Coast University. We don't need the specifics of this particular sample, and anything else is already covered in articles such as Geotechnical engineering and Soil mechanics Meters (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this particular sample happened to have been of critical importance in some major civil engineering case, and there were reliable sources discussing the case and this sample's importance then I could see this being of interest to Wikipedia. Even then it would almost certainly just be an inclusion in the article about the case rather than a stand-along article about the sample. As it is, it is WP:OR about a trivial sample, and probably someone's schoolwork. Meters (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this is a valid topic for an encyclopedic article. Pichpich (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as Pichpich. NOTAWWEBHOST as well. Legacypac (talk)
Delete unclear topic and does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an encyclopedic topic. On the side, note creative use of "infobox settlement" :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm wondering if this was just supposed to be a joke. The cartoon File:PotatoArms.png with the quote "I'd rather be a potato farmer" does not look like a serious attempt at either a Wikipedia article or a school lab report. The article creator purposely added it to the article since it was not in the Sussex County, New Jersey article used as a template, and the editor modified the formatting of the image here [8] and has not touched the article since the potato farmer bit was deleted. Meters (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be similar to a project, falls under WP:NOTWEBHOST for this circumstance. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not amused. should probably just WP:CSD#g1 the thing as it is so much gabble. Dloh cierekim 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Marshall[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. His "most notable for" role is a voice performance in a video game series, and all his listed film and television roles are minor ones -- and there are zero reliable sources being provided here, as the only two references present are a Kickstarter and a podcast. As always, an actor does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because roles are listed -- every actor in existence would get an article if all you had to do was list acting roles -- it takes reliable sources to demonstrate that something noteworthy happened as a result of those roles, such as "he became a famous movie star" or "he won an Oscar". Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles in notable productions to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two good reliable sources have been added to the article since this AfD started, but the subject seems to lack notability independent from the Shenmue games. What little reliably sourced info is in the article can be covered in a sentence of two in Shenmue III, and indeed already is.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete does not meet WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG Dloh cierekim 22:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel Gerle[edit]

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

Advertorially tinged WP:BLP of a person notable only as a former holder of a Mr. Leather title. This is not a notability claim that guarantees an automatic presumption of notability just because the person exists -- of all the past International Mr. Leather titleholders since 1979, just two others actually have Wikipedia articles, and they both have other notability claims much more substantive than IML alone. And for sourcing, all we have here is one primary source and one Q&A interview on a podcast -- which means we have zero sources that actually count toward passage of WP:GNG. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username matches the name of the subject's husband given in the article body. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator covers the points. Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even remotely close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS. No claim to meeting notability. Title is NN. Dloh cierekim 22:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GtfoKenzie[edit]

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

No indication that she is notable as an actress, a YouTuber or a novelist. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no solid claim to motability Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete not notable fails WP:GNG - attempt to promote "upcoming novel" KylieTastic (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best this is too soon. She may or may not even be 18 yet, most of her work is still in production, and clearly has not recieved the post production coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was BLPProD'd then reverted. NN. No sources. Best known for a youtube that was later deleted? Dloh cierekim 22:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maruthoor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All references are from the self published family websites. Searching provides a lot of references for places called 'Maruthoor' which are in no way related to the family. The history of Saint Thomas Christians is provided in the beginning, but notability is not inherited, and being a member of a notable group does not confer any automatic notability to the family. Jupitus Smart 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this article is somewhat better than Peralummoottil family, but I am far from sure how appropriate it is to have articles on particular families, such as this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree the article is written in a more concise way than the one on Peralummoottil family, the fact that it does not have any WP:RS acts against its favour. All the sources mentioned in the article are from the family website. The history therein is sourced from hearsay which over the years gets distorted to a point where the history is just aggrandisement. If the author can provide reliable sources which indicate that the family is notable, then I would not mind withdrawing my nomination, but till then I think it should be a delete. Jupitus Smart 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. unable to locate RS. self pub'd sources on page. Dloh cierekim 22:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Oris[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable sourcing, The noability claim here basically amounts to "he exists", and the referencing depends on Spotify, iTunes and his own social networking profiles rather than reliable source coverage in media. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a musician gets an article just because he exists -- one or more specific achievements which satisfy WP:NMUSIC have to be shown, and reliable source coverage in media has to be present to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nil participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject does not meet relevant notability or sourcing requirements. Dloh cierekim 22:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham City University Rowing Club[edit]

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

University sport club with no clear indication of significance of its own accord. Notability is not inherited, so it may not have an article just because it is part of BCU. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Birmingham City University if suitable sourcing can be found. All I managed to find was Twitter. Adam9007 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what the CCS is to warrant removal of the A7 but here we are... I don't see any coverage indicating this meets our standards, no notable tournaments/games/championships. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk)
Delete NN. meets WP:CSD#A7 Dloh cierekim 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetrees Trust[edit]

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

We need independent source. Looks like spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional, self-sourced fake article. WP pages are not proxies for the website of charities (or people, or companies, etc) . Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable spam. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though commendable, the subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Dloh cierekim 21:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Saranga[edit]

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

No-notable actor fails WP:NACTOR FITINDIA (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 108.172.69.77 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is also failing GNG. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR. Sunject does not meet GNG. Dloh cierekim 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles to attempt to find sources that might support WP:N notability, but unfortunately came up empty. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Migraine Centre[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. One of the refs used is an SEO agency http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/17413 Hum... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I image that the accounts that created the page are related to the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not a WIkipedia article but rather an advertising brochure. Almost perfect example of bad, promotional "article". Thanks to nom for flagging it. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I did see "any practioner could tell you this" quotes from the center, I do not see significant, meaningful coverage of the center. Dloh cierekim 18:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyls Burtland[edit]

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

Seems to be insufficiently notable for a biographical article about a musician. The claims made are fairly minor and some of the references given are not even relevant or not even RS. The article seems to be trying (not necessarily in any bad faith) to inherit notability from other things with which she has some, but not a very significant, connection. Google News shows a few passing mentions but nothing that constitutes significant coverage by reliable sources. Maybe in a few years time this could change but for now it seems too soon for an article. DanielRigal (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author of the article has made a comment at User_talk:HeavenlyAntennas#For_Discussion which probably counts as equivalent to a keep here. This includes a statement that the article is autobiographical. I have also advised them that they can comment here if they want to. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly notable if the trajcetory is continued- at some point oin the future; but that time is not now. The WP:BEFORE that the OP mentioned ([9]) does have afew mentions, but the coverage so far lacks depth and persistence. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A case of Wikipedia: Too Soon. Not enough notable mentions/sources.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passess WP:MUSICBIO on at least two criteria: No. 1 and No. 8.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passess WP:MUSICBIO in criteria 8, 9 and 10. as follows.

Criteria 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award - Has been twice-nominated for the APRA Screen Music Awards ^[1], the largest Screen Music Awards in Australia run by Australasian Performing Right Association. Criteria 9. 'Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition'. Has twice won 'Songwriter of the Year' via Australia's National Song Competition run by the A.S.A - Includes multiple wins in multiple categories in 1998 and 2002 ^[2], as well as 'Songwriter of the Year', the overall category ^[3]. Criteria 10. '''Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, etc.''' - Has composed and performed the main theme music and underscore for numerous multi-season Australian tv Series on Network tv, (some with a viewership over a million, high ratings for Australia) ^[4] ^[5], some of these themes received nominations for 'Best Theme' including; Here Come the Habibs commissioned by Channel 9 Australia ^[6]; and Destination Scandinavia for SBS Network, nominated for Best Theme at the 2016 Asian Television Awards ^[7]. Also passes Criteria 2. of 'Others' in WP:MUSICBIO. Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre, (that of film music) ie Has composed multiple recognisable theme songs (the key identifiable melody) for widely-watched network TV series as mentioned above. ^[8]. - NB. the Article could definitely be better structured and edited. Author's notes and kind regards. HeavenlyAntennas

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APRA_Music_Awards_of_2016
^ http://www.asai.org.au/2002-contest/
^ http://www.asai.org.au/australian-songwriter-of-the-year/
^ http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-ratings/here-come-the-habibs-a-ratings-hit-for-channel-9-with-1249-million-viewers-for-first-episode/news-story/2b2df675f95d75b2f8074db6fc18f2f0
^ https://mumbrella.com.au/abcs-whitlam-doco-rates-just-under-1m-157887
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APRA_Music_Awards_of_2016
^ "https://www.music-asia.com/2016/11/kyls-burtland-nominated-best-theme-song-ata2016/
^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3185575/

Keep based on the addition information and references provided by HeavenlyAntennas I would have to concur that the article satisfies the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing early commenters to assess new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~--Pediaorg (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the analysis by HeavenlyAntennas. Meets WP:MUSICBIO. Laurdecl ^talk 00:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't agree that they meet criteria #2 and #9 of WP:MUSIC, but User:HeavenlyAntennas is quite correct that they meet criteria #8 and #10. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dicko Kasongo[edit]

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

Autobiographical article (personal resume) about non-notable individual sourced only to other Wikipedia articles. DAJF (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected political candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and musicians do not get Wikipedia articles just for existing as working musicians — but the depth of reliable sourcing needed to get him over our notability standards for either endeavour simply aren't being shown here. And even people who do clear our notability standards for musicians or politicians still don't get to write the article themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defeated candidates for parliament in any country are non-notable for this fact, and nothing else about him goes anywhere close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not significant coaverage for WP:GNG. Doses not meet WP:ANYBIO. Wikipedia is not social media, and one should not use it in lieu of facebook or linkedin. Dloh cierekim 18:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Taub (journalist)[edit]

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

Not notable for his journalism or competition on The Voice. All sources are PR, unreliable, or written by Taub himself. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seemingly a vanity article, listing anything for which he has a byline, all of which isn't substantial journalism and only proves that he's a freelancer or employee for the title. KaisaL (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG as not notable. This is a Pseudo-biography of a freelance journalist. With over 3000 papers in the US, thousands worldwide, 7000 magazines (US) and 82 billion a year (US) in digital forms of media there is nothing unique or encyclopedic about this BLP. I do like his writing style but I am sure that is not a valid reason to keep. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability not established in the article or by the sources. EdChem (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable yet. Let's see some awards or even substantive discussion by others of his body of work. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo DeMaria, Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable minor politician lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everett MA, pop 41K, is not large enough to guarantee its mayors an automatic NPOL pass just for being mayors — but this is not properly sourced well enough to get over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local politicians, as its only reference is his own primary source profile on the city's own website. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page is a work in progress, with new information constantly being added. Since the previous post was made, there have been multiple new websites added and other secondry sources. Please allow time for the article to actually develop.

Get him over WP:GNG and then we'll start talking. But the onus is on you to make sure the article is in a keepable state the moment you click save on it the first time, and is not entitled to any special consideration of needing "time to develop". You can "develop" it as a sandbox page in draftspace or userspace if needed — but if it's in mainspace today, then it has to already meet mainspace standards and requirements today and gets no special exemptions from policy. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article is developing with a horrible, non discering use of sources. Facebook is not a reliable source, and should almost never be used at all. The city's own website probably can be used, but cannot add towards notability. Boston Globe is a reliable source, except its coverage of who is running for mayor in cities in its circulation area is routine, and not enough to show notability. Nothing shows DeMaria is more notable than any other small city mayor, and mayors of cities with less than 100,000 are not default notable, unless the city is a truly significant regional center. I am not sure that 100,000 is even a good minimum cut off, and this rule at best only applies to strong mayors. My city has over 100,000, lots of major manufacturing facilities and could be said to be a regional commerce center, attracting people from well beyond the borders for shopping, yet our last mayor's article was deleted, mainly because as a weak mayor he was just a city council member designated as the council president, so he had to pass the much higher hurdles for council member notability. The sources on DeMaria do not show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article also used the subjects own website, which is not adding to notability, a blog post, not adding to notability, and articles about allegations brought against the subject by subordinates. Those do not really rise above the not news guidelines. Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone who is mentioned in the news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Johnpacklambert nails it above. no inherent nobility. just another mayor of yet another small city. no more than routine coverage-- lacks significance. the added sources do not rise above the bar. the most significant coverage is salacious, and this is not "rogue's gallery" or a "annals of crime". Dloh cierekim 18:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mally Mall[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Bwoii (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That just fell out of my KB. Does not meet any of the aforementioned requirements. Removed the taint of negative BLP. Just no significant coverage. Dloh cierekim 17:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APRA_Music_Awards_of_2016

[2] ttp://www.asai.org.au/2002-contest/

[3] ttp://www.asai.org.au/australian-songwriter-of-the-year/

[4] ttp://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-ratings/here-come-the-habibs-a-ratings-hit-for-channel-9-with-1249-million-viewers-for-first-episode/news-story/2b2df675f95d75b2f8074db6fc18f2f0

[5] ttps://mumbrella.com.au/abcs-whitlam-doco-rates-just-under-1m-157887

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APRA_Music_Awards_of_2016

[7] "https://www.music-asia.com/2016/11/kyls-burtland-nominated-best-theme-song-ata2016/

[8] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm3185575/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]