Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 August	3 August >

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. There is no discussion or coverage of the MacOnLinux software in third-party independent sources that establish notability via the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. The additional guidelines for software do not provide a reason to keep. Consensus is to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mac-on-Linux[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable software article, no reliable sources, I could only find a few passing mentions on a Gbook search, but no independent reviews. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable secondary coverage. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability made within the article and lacking secondary sources. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PillarOne.RiskAnalytics[edit]

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

Per several source searches, this risk modeling tool does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author of this article has requested deletion in good faith by adding a prod tag to the article. He has also sent me an email stating this. However, G7 doesn't apply here as at least one other user has made substantive edits. Please consider this request when closing this AfD. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:37, 11 August 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) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Dajani[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC— does not hold any named chairs, is not a department head, etc. I don't think that academic fellowships and visiting professorships will satisfy a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. A quick search on news, journals. google proves that the nominator did not take the time to research before nominating for delete. May i respectfully ask why KDS4444 (talk) did you not do the necessary research? The subject of this page has been cited at KNPR, Nature Magazine, Nature.com, Middletown Press, Yale News, the Chronicle for Higher Education, Jordan Times and others. You did not do your homework, kind fellow wikipedian before nominating for deletion, no? If so why? So many women are deleted without any background checks, without checks of their maiden names, without checks on alternative news sources that are not dominate by the male mainstream corporate funding sources. Why so trigger happy, my brother? I have not even looked at books, jstor, and other scholarly sources, yet there are so many! - why delete without inquiry, kindness and generousity, sir? What gives? Too many keys to compress or? PRACTICE Restraint. Research. Resitance. PLEASE PEACEFUL contributions to our global encyclopedia, dear. SUBJECT CLEARLY MEETS WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNP Netherzone (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, there's quite a lot of coverage [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], which clearly meets the WP:GNG from where I'm standing. Her GS record has a couple of highly-cited papers that may constitute a very weak argument for WP:PROF#C1, but she's more notable for her work on educational outreach and as a commentator on evolution and Islam (i.e. WP:PROF#C7). – Joe (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please see resources in my sandbox. there's wide of coverage about dr al dajani. Also i am planning to improve the article as soon as possible in my leisure time----مصعب (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to claims I did not "do my homework" before making this nomination: a Google search on her name turns up Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, MyLife, Whitepages, Intelius, YouTube, InstantCheckmate, 411, NamesDirectory.net, MyHeritage, and a series of other directory listings. I did not look beyond the first 50 hits because none of them qualified as relevant for a Wikipedia notability argument. She only got 266 hits overall, including all of these directory listings and social networking sites. Given this, the subject does not WP:CLEARLY seem to be notable. Promises to improve the article come right out of WP:AADD. What would have been better is if someone added some of the "references" mentioned above to the article so that her notability could be made more evident and reviewable rather than having them added to her deletion discussion where they are much, much more difficult to assess. KDS4444 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444, it was I who used the term that offended you, "do your homework" and for that I apologize. I'm sorry I made you feel disrespected, but for some reason, we are getting remarkably different search results. What is perplexing about your response, is that when I do a Google Search, I come up with 7,840 hits, the first five ones are: Nature.com, Yale News, Arabian Business (that BTW, this publication names her one of the top 100 Arab women in Science), the Jordan Times, and MIT News. When I look on Google Scholar there are 232 citations and she is the lead author of some of the scientific papers found there. I'm wondering if it has something to do with browser settings? My searches did not come up with any of the social networking sites that were reflected in your results. Netherzone (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: I must also be using a different search engine to you because for me this search returns 20,000+ hits and there are dozens of reliable sources in the first 50. All of the twelve sources I linked above constitute significant coverage of Dajani in a reliable source. There are several more in مصعب's sandbox. These do not have to be added to the article to make Dajani notable; it's enough that they exist. – Joe (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at some Google settings, because perhaps maybe MINE are the ones that are off. Here is a link to the page that Google generated when I did my search, please let me know (any of you and for my own sake) if you get a list longer than I indicated above: <https://www.google.com/search?num=40&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=%22raja+dajani%22&oq=%22raja+dajani%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i13i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.1827.8388.0.8937.14.12.0.0.0.0.438.848.4-2.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..12.2.846.0..0.wDJYZRPaNoQ> Also, @Joe Roe: I am familiar with the fact that sources merely need to exist— I've been around long enough to be familiar with that guideline. What I meant above was that I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion if I saw such sources already in the article. I didn't say it was mandatory, I said it would have been helpful (and I am still somewhat mystified that it was not done, if they exist). I am on the verge of withdrawing my nomination— please show me how my Google results are turning out so differently from those of others! (Note for Joe: you must not have put Raja Dajani in quotes, meaning you got all results that contained the word "Raja" as well as all results containing the word "Dajani", almost none of which are for "Raja Dajani", yes? Also: the 6th citation, to Nature, is an article she wrote herself— i.e., a primary source, which can't be used to substantiate a notability claim, as far as I can remember.) KDS4444 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is Rana Dajani. – Joe (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444 it seems that you may have misspelled her name in your Google search. Try searching for: "Rana Dajani" and you will find the correct person - a woman scientist of note. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant independent third-party coverage, meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete. With only 231 cites on GS [13] in a highly cited field it is far WP:Too soon to pass WP:Prof. Notability will have to be based on other grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(...except no one really cares, do they... My guess is that this article will now be kept indefinitely.) KDS4444 (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is "one of the 20 most influential women scientists in the Islamic world 2014, #12 among the 100 most powerful women in the Arab world 2015 and 2014, and in the women in science hall of fame 2015." See this link for verification. Her being in the Science Hall of Fame passes the requirements without having to look further, but when you see her other accomplishments and how she has made an impact, this one is a no-brainer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she's a Fulbright Scholar, been spotlighted by magazines, is in a Hall of Fame, got a Library of Congress award that's not a grant, King Hussein Medal of Honor. How can her notability even be a question? Hildabast (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all the references above outlined by User:Joe Roe, this article subject easily passes WP:GNG. Subject has notability. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stelian Onufrei[edit]

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

Political candidate of no apparent note, no sign of meeting WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Comments on the page admit it was written as a promotional piece by a campaign staffer to "establish his legitimacy." A7 was declined but this clearly is, at best, WP:TOOSOON pending the election. JamesG5 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I think TOOSOON is accurate here. In the future, this topic might make the grade, but for now, and as it is right now, it fails POLITICIAN. South Nashua (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candidates for office do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot show and properly source that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides their candidacy, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. And one piece of routine coverage verifying the fact of his candidacy is not a WP:GNG pass in and of itself, either, because every candidate in any election could always show that. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. Bearcat's argument is very apt, and I agree with the last part strongly. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Gold (Talent Agent)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Being a member of "the academy" isn't listed at WP:NACTOR. This is a promo piece as the poor tone shows. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we almost always delete articles on ordinary agents. That he's been "associated" with many actors doesn't cut it here. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 8 August 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) Lourdes 16:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Lobjoit[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with my sandbox which was created months ago, until such time as this player is notable. Giant Snowman 07:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - made his pro debut last night. Giant Snowman 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge~~ to GiantSnowman's sandbox per above, although might have to delete in case of WP:CROSSNAMESPACE. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets the WP:NFOOTY requirements as per LTFC 95's !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL having made his professional debut in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL has made his debut at the start of the season.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:28, 10 August 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) Lourdes 16:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asian boar[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced one-sentence article. I moved it to draftspace to be worked on, unfortunately it was just moved back to mainspace with no attempt to add references or establish notability in any way. No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of evidence including Current views on taxonomy and zoogeography of the genus Sus; Pigs and Humans: 10,000 Years of Interaction and the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do we now apply notability guidelines more widely? I would think that any widely distributed species would deserve an article, and a subspecies would deserve either an article or a redirect. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corsico-Sardinian wild pig. Minimum done. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to meet WP:NOTABILITY. It simply has to meet WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Is this a valid zoological name or not. The nomination statement fails to address this one key point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 3 August 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) Lourdes 02:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North African boar[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced two-sentence article. I moved it to draftspace to be worked on, unfortunately it was just moved back to mainspace. No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Asian boar discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable being covered in detail in sources such as A history of pigs in Africa and Hunting practices and consumption patterns in rural communities in the Rif mountains (Morocco)—some ethno-zoological notes. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corsico-Sardinian wild pig. Minimum done.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to meet WP:NOTABILITY. It simply has to meet WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Is this a valid zoological name or not. The nomination statement fails to address this one key point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 3 August 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) ansh 666 04:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corsico-Sardinian wild pig[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced one-sentence article. I moved it to draftspace to be worked on, unfortunately it was just moved back to mainspace with no effort made to add references or address concerns in any way. No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy to find sources for such topics. For example,

Wild Pigs in the United States
The Walking Larder
Vegetable and animal food sorts found in the gastric content of Sardinian Wild Boar (Sus scrofa meridionalis)
Damages caused to crops by wild boars (S. scrofa meridionalis) in Sardinia
Reproductive and demographic parameters in Sardinian wild boar, Sus scrofa meridionalis

and so on. Neither AfD nor Prod are for cleanup. Our editing policy states clearly that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, by moving them back to mainspace within hours, without clear edit summaries as to why and without an attempt to improve them, is not 'collaborative editing' by any means. I didn't suggest they need cleanup, they need deletion or redirecting, or such serious work that it isn't clear at the moment that they can possibly meet our criteria - which is what draftspace is for. This is part of a series by an editor, Dennis the mennis, who has refused to communicate or add sources. Boleyn (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid subspecies, material plainly exists and just needs to be added. Granted, Dennis the mennis hasn't covered themselves in glory with these unreferenced stubs, but now that they are here, we might as well spruce them up. Did the minimum for this (and the other two - in process). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to meet WP:NOTABILITY. It simply has to meet WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Is this a valid zoological name or not. The nomination statement fails to address this one key point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 3 August 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) ansh 666 04:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Clemmett[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing a major role in London and then taking it to Broadway is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. There are adequate sources to support the topic and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so we're good? Where are these adequate sources, Andrew Davidson? Boleyn (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, nominators are expected to "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources". Naturally, I have done this already using search links such as those provided above. It should therefore not be necessary to list them here as participants are all expected to have this competence. Andrew D. (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several more reliable references to article including The New York Times. Subject goes through the threshold of notability and passes WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 02:21, 7 August 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. (non-admin closure) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Monks (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Same reasoning as deletion for Template:The Monks stories. There is no indication that the characters are going to be recurring throughout the series, therefore this article is unnecessary, as it does not expand upon anything not already given by the episode articles. -- Alex^TW 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have only three continuous episodes with them, and no indication of being a recurring villain. Add there's little discussion of these characters in secondary sources beyond these episodes. If they get more episodes we can talk about a standalone article then. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Up/Downmerge There is nothing here that can't or shouldn't be covered in either Doctor Who (series 10) or the three individual episode articles. No prejudice restarting an article on the critters if they end up appearing in a different season, or if they end up getting substiantial RS (e.g. academic) coverage as a species, a la Silence (Doctor Who). Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge At the moment they are not notable enough to justify their own article - there are various other articles where this material could be covered, such as the section that deals with them in this article List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (H–P). Dunarc (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC) (for Cyber Planner)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge not currently notable. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:54, 9 August 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. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 16:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaran Mahalingam[edit]

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

Subject to an unconfessed paid job and now CU-banned accounts (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji), therefore this violates our WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:NPOV, WP:Five pillars, WP:Terms of Use and WP:Paid, all fundamental laws in terms of what content can and cannot be used. If we examine that alone, it's enough for any deletion, but especially when the sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 (this one especially known for taking in "donated" stories), 8 (a labeled "local heroes"), 9, 10 - local indiscriminate story, 5 - personal website, 6 - a hosted story, 11 is another listing and 12 is yet the same as before. If we consider that in weight alone, it shows this is meant as a locally hosted article in addition to what he's used, and that is immediately what an encyclopedia is not. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Selective Merge to Standup paddleboarding § History~~. From source searches, this appears to be a WP:BLP1E situation at this time. However, it is verified that the subject has been listed in the Limca Book of Records (source), which is certainly noteworthy, and the main article has no mention of this. Regarding "subject to an unconfessed paid job and now CU-banned accounts..." in the nomination, I could be missing something, but the article creator has not been blocked or banned (block log). More context about this aspect of the rationale in the nomination would be appreciated. Is there an SPI report available about the matter? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What policy basis is there for bypassing our Terms of Use which says These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation and the now CU-banned user had not (despite several times asked), but actually then subsequently continued sockpuppetry. Our WP:Five pillars is clear this behavior is not tolerated and by keeping is, is treading on our fundamentals. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, could you link to a SPI report? The article creator, Infinite stars (talk · contribs) has not been blocked (block log). Are you referring to a different user, rather than the article creator? If so, who? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000 and SwisterTwister: I blocked them; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji. G5 is now feasible. No comment regarding the suitability of the article, though. GAB^gab 02:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. Struck my !vote above. Thanks for the update, GeneralizationsAreBad. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the provenance of the article and its contributors, the subject is not notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a non-notable TOU violation by a CU confirmed sock that was created after the initial block. This isn't even a moral certainty of G5 case: the initial master was blocked on 19 July. The article was created on 1 August. Clear cut case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I agree with TonyBallioni. It should be speedy deleted per WP:G5: "pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 17:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard International Relations Council[edit]

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

Sources are self-published, not relevant, or by niche blogs: fails WP:ORG Colestefan (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Foreign Policy magazine say Harvard is the best place to study foreign relations(#1 on list of 10), specifically mentioning the HIRC [14] Rhadow (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. I agree with Rhadow. Just because the sources are bad does not make the page irrelevant. Someone just needs to put in the work to update them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.232.67 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Rhadow. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Sri Lankan Tamil: Humanitarian Issues[edit]

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

PROD was added without an explanation so it was summarily declined as it should have been. As such, I'll go ahead and send this to AfD with a full nomination: the current article fails WP:NOTCASE as it is a POV fork from Human rights in the United Kingdom and British Tamil. As such it should be deleted as being against WP:NOT and WP:DEL5. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Del, this article not only has a topic on it, but is heavily biased and belongs in British Sri Lankan Tamil, not here. Also, an article lacking sufficient research [15] likely isn't notable for Wikipedia. Ups and Downs (↕) 06:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. POV fork from the two articles cited. It is not an encyclopaedic article unto itself - per WP:OSE - as it is not inherently notable, just bits and bods put together to create WP:SYNTH. As it stands, any relevant content should only constitute a brief subsection in one or the other article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of this makes sense. For one, Sri Lankan culture(s) existed for thousands of years and every facet and religion therein was homophobic and patriarchal. Britain hasn't controlled Ceylon since 1948, almost 70 years ago. Secondly, the colonial service was a den of homosexuality (see Roger Casement). Third, it's mostly illogical nonsense and synthesis mixed in with soapboxing. Tamil LGBT may be an oppressed minority subculture, but don't blame the Brits for what's happening in 2017. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Burroughs[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate for federal office (WP:NPOL).

Current office as chair of a regional municipality isn't notable as per MOS:CA#Municipal politics. Madg2011 (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the original creator here, at a time when Wikipedia was a lot looser about the notability of mayors than it is now. Under current standards, Niagara on the Lake is not large enough to automatically get its mayors past WP:NPOL, being chair of the regional council doesn't automatically make him more notable than the norm, and the coverage of him doesn't have the depth or range needed to satisfy the ultimate notability criterion for local politicians, "has been the subject of significant press coverage". There was once a time when all that had to be shown to get a basic stub started and presumed notable was that he could be verified as holding the mayoralty of a place that had a credible claim to "regional prominence", but we require quite a bit more than that now. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per original creators wishes - not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree as per nom. Might also want to consider Frederick S. Goring for deletion because he appears to be in the same boat as Burroughs. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick S. Goring. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by User:RHaworth as WP:G7. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Gilman[edit]

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

I don't believe "Associate Chancellor" is automatically notable, and I can't find enough about him to meet WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:36, 2 August 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. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of press release agencies[edit]

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

The applicable pages here are WP:Indiscriminate (policy: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion), WP:Not catalog and WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists (Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists). To find sourcing, I went here and here but could find nothing to suggest there's coverage for a "List of press release agencies" and there's [[Category:List of press release agencies]] instead, and this was the PROD basis in January. The current appearance of "press release agencies" is a concern in WP:Not brochure since it reads like a basic listing, and not a serious encyclopedia article; equally, the lead is simply a copy of Public relations; the link sources are simply about the public relations business and, likewise, are best suited at the relevant page. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Press release agencies. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. It is not an indiscriminate list; rather it has a very focused scope, as a list of notable press release agencies. I created this article on 05:44, 1 August 2017‎ (less than two days ago) and am still working on expanding it, which takes time to perform. Also, why was this nominated for deletion in such a rushed manner? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, the nomination says we have both WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Notability lists here, and I actually visit the link WP:NOTDUP only to see there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia and there's also WP:V concerns given the dryness of sources here, not nearly enough to suggest there's full evidence of "List of press release agencies" in coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This list article is not "indiscriminate" whatsoever. Rather, it is precisely discriminate and very narrow in scope. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriate list. We have for many years interpreted the inclusion criteria for lists very broadly. This list will of course contain only those which are notable in the sense of having WP articles. It's no more a "Basic listing"than those of any other line of business. List of organization in any line of business whatsoever or any profession are justified when there are at least a few individuals ones notable enough for WP articles. When I first came here, there were challenges to such lists based on the hypothesis that there had to be sources that made such lists to be used as references, but it has since been accepted that the presence of the WP articles is sufficient. I find it difficult to imagine any WP category at this level which should not have a corresponding list. (as distinct from very broad categories such as American people, or very narrow ones which can justify a category to keep the system parallel with other categories, but which be combined into a more comprehensive list article). A list is appropriate bother for identifying and for browsing, because it can give some identifying detail not present in the category. Since this is just such an obvious keep as our tens of thousands of other such lists, I am puzzled to see the motivation for selecting this one for an AfD. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Re: "I am puzzled to see the motivation for selecting this one for an AfD", the nom has rapidly nominated several articles I have created for deletion in the last few days. See their recent contributions, which denotes their deletion notices to my talk page for more information. Perhaps I slighted the nominator somehow somewhere, and they are seeking to "get even" by getting my articles deleted. I could be wrong, and I try to assume good faith, but something is awry. I'm a Wikipedia:Autopatrolled user, so new pages I create are automatically approved on the new pages log. Other pages they have nominated for deletion are much older. It seems rather clear what's actually occurring, to me anyway. The nominator is very likely following my edits and working to get my work deleted. See also WP:HOUNDING. Perhaps I will stop creating new articles for some time; that way, I don't have to worry about spurious, knee-jerk nominations such as this, with walls of text copy-pasted from policy/guideline pages, wasting my time defending works that are typically appropriate on English Wikipedia. It's a real time waster. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my intention was to imply this qy, but without mentioning any specific person. I try to minimize ad personam arguments at afd. I do not, for example, mention at AfD the puzzlement felt by those trying to remove promotionalism in response to your defenses of borderline notable promotional articles. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You seem to be ignoring valid hounding concerns, though, by not addressing them, instead discussing other AfD discussion I have participated in, which is entirely off-topic. I view it as fair game to present actual events that have occurred relative to this article being nominated for deletion, which is objective. However, I digress, as AfD decorum is based upon topics, rather than users. My !vote remains for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Press release agencies. And per WP:LISTPURP. Despite the detailed nomination statement, there is no policy reason to delete. There is nothing indiscriminate about the list and basing it on '"nothing to suggest there's coverage for a "List of press release agencies"' is just plain silly. That ain't how it works. You know what also probably doesn't have any press coverage? Category:Press release agencies and every other category we have. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:LISTN. A valid list for the given industry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is good information that serves the purpose of Wikipedia. I also wonder why this was nominated, and even has a single delete vote. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherweb[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. DrStrauss talk 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company: sourcing is either not independent or trivial mentions, and none of the awards are generally big enough to be considered notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references do not convince me of notability for this company. PK T(alk) 19:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karmen Berentsen[edit]

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

Non-notable businesswoman who doesn't meet biographical notability or general notability. Purely local publicity, mostly the usual vanity hits. Google search reveals that she exists, that her boutique exists, and some sort of civil case with Titan Technology. Neither she nor her boutique is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of enduring notability and GNG. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that this individual isn't meeting GNG based on sourcing and search to date. Purely local business person. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ANYBIO. Also detecting undertones of WP:PROMO. DrStrauss talk 10:01, 4 August 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 deletion as a copyright infringement of various sources. There is, of course, nothing to prevent anyone from creating the suggested redirect: the history of this article is not needed for that to be done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamai Raja (Bengali TV series)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. This was a declined prod with the edit summary "Decline Prod. A TV series translated into multiple labguages sounds notable to me". However, nothing in the article establishes notability and notability is not inherited. While the original series may be notable this does not automatically mean this version of it is. There is a section in the article titled "Adaptations" but this seems to document (without sources) adaptations from the original, not from this version. Searches all seem to point to the original series, not this one. AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jamai Raja (TV series) Only one line is needed for this in that article; probably just uses the Hindi script with merely a translation to Bengali. Nate • (chatter) 01:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Plus[edit]

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

Non-notable publication - website indicates it isn't a newspaper per se, it's more of an advertising medium for the Fredericton area. PK T(alk) 18:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local paper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every local newspaper is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists — it needs to demonstrate and reliably source a claim of notability that would pass WP:NMEDIA. But that's not present here, and I can't any evidence that improvement is possible at all. Creator's rationale for declining a prod attempt in 2015, "Basically, just want to list Freddy Plus as a paper being produced in Fredericton", is not a valid reason to keep it — our role is not to be a comprehensive directory of everything that exists, but to maintain properly sourced articles about things that satisfy our notability standards. No objection to having it listed in Media in Fredericton, but nothing here qualifies it for a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Chao (Guinness World Records)[edit]

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

I would argue that WP is not a world record book or a depository of facts. Having an article for every world record holder would create an absurd abundance of pages. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear case of WP:BLP1E; the one event isn't remotely notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely worth mentioning in the article for Pi, let alone having a stand-alone page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say this should be kept, but having a separate article about it is definitely better than mentioning in the article about

π

. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no way this meets WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would suggest a redirect to Piphilology but he is not even mentioned there after someone else broke his record. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some RS coverage: his record attempt was reported by Sohu [16] and China News Service, [[17]]. But not quite substantial enough coverage for WP:GNG IMHO. Matt's talk 18:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a random dump of miscellaneous information. DrStrauss talk 10:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - breaking an arbitrary record does not make one notable. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Anaar Abbasi[edit]

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

I did a little digging & there seems to have been a big effort to publicize this man, but it's hard to see where this meets WP:GNG. It's certainly tragic when a firefighter loses his life when trying to save others, but that doesn't automatically rate a page here. Absent a lot of sourcing on why this is important I can't see this as a page. JamesG5 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE = [18], [19], i.e. non-existant coverage in reliable sources. — fortunavelut luna 17:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could have been deleted speedy, due to non-citiation. He doesn't seems to have received press coverage, even during his death. --Saqib (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as unfortunate as this is, only his death could possibly be construed as notable but I would still contest that per WP:1EVENT and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 10:03, 4 August 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. Seems to be general consensus that there are enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping Traffic[edit]

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

A paid promotional puff piece, poorly sourced, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep leaving aside the "paid promotion" issue, it is actually not that badly sourced, with a local CBC Saskatchewan piece and then Associated Press story (in different forms). Then I see we also have a bylined piece from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I think the film meets GNG. Yes, the creator has been blocked but I think we have a notable documentary film on an important topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable. And the article is advocacy -- advocacy on a noble cause, but still advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage, but without the depth required to establish notability according to WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Perhaps it will become notable after the release, and someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest will write about it. Rentier (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but the film has released and has more than just "some" coverage Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It had several pre-premiere showings. I'm referring to the public release in September 2017. I disagree that the depth of coverage is sufficient to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Note how references 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have the same title, being rehashes of the same news. 2 and 10 are in fact the same article. The film has received no notable awards or nominations, no "full-length reviews by nationally known critics", there is no indication that the film is widely distributed.. Rentier (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon again, but there is no policy demand that we treat its multiple screenings as if inconsequential. And please, we DO NOT use WP:OEN for films less than five years old or as if its suggestions for instances which might indicate notability were themselves mandates to somehow over-rule WP:GNG. I am minded that Star Telegram is quite in-depth and substantive, as are Blasting News and Siglo. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Level of sources seems to indicate notability that is likely to develop over a relatively short term. If moved to draft and later submitted for restoration to mainspace, a neutral evaluator can decide at that time whether the article has been rendered neutral and well-sourced enough to merit inclusion. bd2412 T 02:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF through existing coverage. While wonderful if or when it happens, we do not demand perfection. Any concerns over tone or "advocacy" can be dealt with through regular editing. We do not delete notable topics over ugliness, we instead fix. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Q Schmidt - it's not a "Puff piece" as the nominator suggests - the topic of the film is worthy itself. It could do with some tidying up, but find me an article on here that doesn't. It needs fixing, so let's fix it. Dane|Geld 19:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Star Telegram and Blasting News Atlantic306 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is an article written by a "retired engineer" who had "served as Senior Manager in an aircraft manufacturing company", posted on a citizen journalism website, a reliable source for an encyclopedia article about a film? Rentier (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we leave out Blasting News that still leaves sources such as Star Telegram and Siglo Atlantic306 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the Siglo article is a more or less literal translation of the original AP story, as are the articles in CBC, Boston Herald, Fox News and US News. It seems to me that the independent reliable coverage is limited to the AP story and the Star Telegram article. The latter is something of a local news: "Shree, who is spiritual director at the Siddhayatan Spiritual Retreat Center and Ashram in Windom about 100 miles northeast of Fort Worth". If that's enough to meet WP:GNG, then I have nothing to add. Rentier (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but the WP:SIGCOV also found through independent sources CBC News, Boston Herald, AP News, and even San Francisco Chronicle and Beloit Daily News make it kinda hard to deny WP:GNG. Please go review WP:NFP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess a clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NFP per a source review. Concerns about the article's tone can be addressed by copy editing it and discussion on the article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does seem to meet WP:NFP.Real reviews in real publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow restoration to userspace if asked, because what the one fundamental policy the Keeps have considered or said yet, is our Terms of Use at Wikimedia Foundation which says in bold: These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities....As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation and considering the user apparently never cared to openly disclose it, but worse actually make an extensive list of such activities, it unquestionably shows they must not be given the luxury of such covert attempts. After all, our WP:Five pillars says, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and must not be used for promotion or advertising. This is no different if we honestly take our Terms of Use seriously, since one exception will inevitably lead any advertiser to ask for it again, that is not concept of this encyclopedia, especially when such votes above only care to mention "Sources exist", "Has sources", "Good sources, "Article can be improved" (the latter, how exactly? If the Terms of use is different than any simple content guideline). Another comment then says "it's not a puff piece" yet that's contrary to what our Terms of use listed above says it to be. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A request for Closure has been filed. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:30, 11 August 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. Subject now meets NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Kanu[edit]

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

Hasn't played in football league Telfordbuck (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page was previously nominated for speedy deletion, by the same nominator, on grounds that it lacked credible claim of significance. My response to this, which can be found here, was that while he plays non-league football, WPFOOTY allows for instances where a player can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. In particular, the player obtains significant notability in the records he holds for Aldershot Town; being the club's youngest ever player and youngest ever goalscorer. This notability is further reflected by the level of media coverage (from reputable outlets such as the BBC) in respect of the aforementioned records and of him in general, from both youth level and current senior performances. Furthermore, this page previously passed a DYK nomination without any issues and featured on the home page on 31 December 2016. The speedy deletion nomination was promptly removed by RickinBaltimore. I hope the same logic can be applied here. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given the coverage provided. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL (agreed) and WP:GNG - all coverage is minor in local news, or routine transfer in national. Happens to most young players, doesn't make them notable. Giant Snowman 07:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - made his professional debut today, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. @Fenix down, ClubOranje, and Number 57: you might wish to reconsider. Giant Snowman 18:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most young players are not multiple record-holders for their clubs. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:05, 20 July 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. Granted there is some coverage of this playerthat is outside of routine match reporting / transfer talk, but this seems to be restricted to local news outlets. The reason it is restricted to local news outlets is because this is a player who play at a level that generally only gets local news coverage and as such is not generally notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)3[reply]

Keep - Now meets NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As pointed out before, NFOOTY cannot be read in isolation when it allows for instances where a player can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. These requirements are summarised as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The player has received both national (various BBC sources) and local coverage; the coverage is reliable, especially in respect of the records which come directly from the club whose records he has broken; the sources are clearly independent; and the player is suitable for a stand-alone article. As for the statement that "[there is] no indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG", I disagree and point you again to the fact that he is the youngest player EVER to have played and scored for Aldershot, regardless of the league. In the club's entire history, he is the youngest to have achieved that feat. There is certainly notability in that. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bombard each editor with lengthy comments and rebuttals, particularly when they are basically word for word copies of previous comments. Firstly, my argument clearly acknowledges GNG as being more important NFOOTY. Secondly, I explain satisfactorily why this subject does not meet GNG. The fact that he is the youngest goalscorer for a club makes no difference if this is not discussed in a significant manner. As there has basically been no coverage of this player outside of routine match reporting beyond a local level, I do not see him as passing GNG, very brief articles like this in a local news source do not to my mind constitute significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion are debates, and as such rebuttals are more than appropriate. It was not my intention to bombard. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the comments can be considered bombardment. This is a discussion after all, and he does arguably meet WP:GNG. It's not clear cut one way or the other. It would be wrong of him not to discuss further, for surely it is discussion that will lead to the kind consensus, that I think we all seek. Nfitz (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple local rag articles but wider coverage is not beyond WP:ROUTINE. Could be argued that coverage is more than some in his situation, but it is not notable, and therefore does not meet GNG. Fails subject specific NFOOTY guidelines. As for the claim he is the club's youngest player and youngest league goal scorer, well it would be fair to say that EVERY club has a youngest player and youngest league goalscorer. Notability is meant to be permanent; when a younger Aldeshot kid comes along, and one will, that little claim to fame disappears. Can be rcreated IF he starts to achieve.ClubOranje^T 12:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My comments on GNG and NFOOTY are above so I won't repeat those. My take on the permanence is a little bit different, though. Someone will, in all likelihood break those records (bearing in mind that this could take decades), but he will always have been the club's youngest player / league goalscorer. A sprinter who holds a time-record doesn't lose his notability when his time is broken. Similarly, a younger player/scorer popping up doesn't change the fact that he was once the club's youngest ever player/scorer. At the time he appeared/scored, there had never been a younger player/scorer for the club. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response If the lad is 'notable' for being the youngest scorer for Aldershot then he is not notable by Wikipaedia standards. This is even below that threshhold of WP:ONEVENT in that it is a non notable event. At best you might give this kid a temporary mention on the Aldershot page. Several tens of thousands of clubs and you want each of their youngest scorers to have a page? To take your example, A sprinter who holds an time record is notable if he holds the world record, not if he holds the record for East Hampshire Amateur Athletics club. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable things, not the archive version of semi-interesting local events. Not everything that gets written in papers qualifies as WikeNotable. ClubOranje^T 12:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on new development: Hi all, please be advised that Idris Kanu has now signed for Football League One side Peterborough United F.C.^[1] Please take this into consideration. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:NFOOTY failure. Can easily be restored if/when he plays a first-team game. Number 57 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now that he passes. Liam, try to be a bit more patient next time and wait till a player actually makes his debut, rather than making everyone waste their time like this. Cheers, Number 57 17:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm familiar with the standard required and was of the opinion that his achievements passed GNG. Whether I was correct or not, which is/was the subject of this debate, the creation of the article was done in good faith. I'm not an editor who creates articles en masse for the sake of stats so your suggestion that I wasted everyone's time is out of line, especially for an admin. Nonetheless, thank you for changing your vote in light of the new circumstances. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment on new developments: Player has made his League One debut today - a league that satisfies NFOOTY. Certainly passes the criteria now. Could I please ask for your guys' further thoughts GiantSnowman, Fenix down, ClubOranje and Number 57? Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Liam E. Bekker's immediate above comment subject now meets WP:NFOOTY, there is also a good (but flawed) argument that can be made that Kanu passes WP:GNG as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL having now played in a fully professional league. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Duyn[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the 'professor test' on WP:NACADEMIC. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of evidence of independent achievement. Some high cites on GS on a super-hot topic: functional MRI. Part of a large team. Can't find any single-author papers that would indicate independent achievement WP:Too soon. This is a case where high cites don't lead to a pass of WP:Prof. BLP is atrociously written, was created by an spa blocked account. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass guidelines for academics. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he's gotten tenure. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eckovation[edit]

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

One media coverage is found. else typical Startups with cause. Press coverage. but written or intended to be promotional alone. 2. there are several noble ideas, but it does not mean they are encyclopedia notable. Too early to write a wikipedia article. Light2021 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for lack of independent, in-depth coverage; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are all WP:SPIP and / or future looking as in "Eckovation to build a full-blown social learning platform!" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independent coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition to the three substantial independent sources in the article, I found several more, mainly in Indian newspapers. The articles that talk about the company's plans also include material about their current work, so editors could easily expand the article without WP:CRYSTALBALL.

"How startup firm Eckovation is using AI to make open school platform smarter" - The Economic Times
"The Learner's Social Network" - Outlook Business
"Eckovation launches 'Open School' programme, eyes a billion users by 2020" - Business Standard
"Exclusive: Chandigarh Angels Network backs social learning platform Eckovation" - Techcircle, part of VCCircle, which is part of News Corp
"Ex-IITians come up with open-school learning startup Eckovation" - Business Line
"Two IIT Graduates Found a Lack in Parent-Teacher Interaction. They Are Solving It with an App!" - The Better India
"Eckovation Plans To Break The Educational Barriers With Their Social Learning Platform" - Inc42
"Free mobile app for quality education" - The Tribune

Dreamyshade (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the WP:SPIP coverage that is not sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as in "Eckovation launches 'Open School' programme, eyes a billion users by 2020!" This is all about company aspirations, funding and future looking plans. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account WP:SPIP, it looks like these sources generally qualify because they're from reasonably reputable newspapers/publications that pass the WP:ORGIND criteria, unlikely to be paid placement. For WP:CORPDEPTH, it helps that most of the articles go into several paragraphs of detail, instead of being simple statements. Some of the articles (such as "Eckovation launches 'Open School' programme, eyes a billion users by 2020") are primarily quotes from the staff, which is a point against them for WP:CORPDEPTH, but others include some material not directly quoted from staff (such as "Two IIT Graduates Found a Lack in Parent-Teacher Interaction. They Are Solving It with an App!" and "Exclusive: Chandigarh Angels Network backs social learning platform Eckovation"). Dreamyshade (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources have an appearance of being driven by launch publicity. An example from "They Are Solving It with an App!":

"Ritesh Singh and Akshat Goel, graduates from IIT Delhi, met the parents during the school’s annual PTM. They introduced the parents to Eckovation, a mobile app that can help them be in constant touch with the teachers at school and remain informed about all important school activities. (...) The more they looked, the more they felt that one of the main reasons behind this difference was the complete lack of communication between parents and teachers in smaller cities as compared to the schools in the bigger metros."

This presents the POV of the founders, telling their "origins story". Getting coverage is largely a PR driven exercise, CORPDEPTH requires third-party, transformative analysis, and I don't see it in the sources presented. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these pieces look driven by the company wanting to tell their story and seeking press, although that doesn't seem to disqualify the sources under SPIP or CORPDEPTH, since it's still independent coverage and not paid coverage. I'm reading CORPDEPTH and I don't see it requiring transformative analysis to meet the requirements, especially if there are multiple independent sources available, and I'm seeing coverage from 8+ independent publications and authors. I'd prefer there to be some deeper critical coverage available in order to build a strong and balanced article, but it still looks to me like the minimum notability threshold is met. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is simply a starting company going about its business and with the usual processes of gaining attention: Publicity press or public relations which is natural for businesses, but not for an encyclopedia. What WP:CORPDEPTH actually says is articles must not be excluded from WP:What Wikipedia is not and notability is not a guarantee. The sources:
"A startup company....which is engaged....to make its platform smarter....[the founders] launched Eckovation....[and has] taken initiative....The firm has completed....The aim has been...." (first one),
"[They] created this social network....[says co-founder]....download the app, register and start....Interested students can....add themselves and the courses....series via YouTube or Google. Courses fees start from....The start up earns a commission on...." (second one)
"The programme aimes to....[Co-founder] says the initiative....[Eckovation employee] told....He explained....[CEO said]....For Eckovation [he] added....and he said..." (third one)
"The startup will utilise the money....Eckovation connects....Eckovation was co-founded by....The platform hosts....and plans to....[They] compete....[They have] been generating interest....aims to invest...." (fourth one)
"[They] have come up with....[They] wanted to provide....[They chose]....[He] hails from....he said....According to him....[He] says the....says the [co-founder]....Eckovation has allowed....[They have] raised money...." (fifth one)
"They have developed....They attended....They introduced....[He] joined....[He] started discussing....[They] observed...."
"In order to....[They] came up with Eckovation....can create their own accounts....With Eckovation, you can....[They] are currently looking for....As claimed by the founders, the app...."
"The app is available for free....[The employee] said....[Business partner] has teamed....Through this initiative....She says....Available on eckovation.com....She added...." (this one was especially a few paragraphs with each one starting on a "employee says" or "they say")

If this is all the sources have to offer, it's not independent as by WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:V without outside involvement. This is not only indiscriminate, but each one clearly labels the self-servicing by the business itself, but we're not a for-hire agency. What our notability also cite is the need to ensure all the sources are examined to see if they're otherwise unacceptable, and the analysis here shows quite the opposite of "significant". SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source from among those above that might seem to be best, the Economic times is an interview, 95% written by the founder; ditto for the second & third; the 4th is a series of notes about recent announcements from various companies; the 5th, 6th 7th and 8th are just the same sort of interviews. I do not understand how any responsible journalist can put his name on a melange somebody else's quotations this way, and the journals that publish it stand self-convicted or irresponsibility. (of course, we knew that before, but this batch is a nice confirmation. Until India has a responsible source of business journalism , we will be unable to write reliable articles about small and medium Indian companies. Perhaps we need a proper statement that these particular sources are never acceptable for purposes of RSs for notability. We could then simply delete any article which has no better sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a minor company which is one of the many educational startups by IITians. I have never heard of this earlier and I do not know of any significant impact this has (this is far from being a popular lms). There are a few articles about the company, but these are fairly routine ones based on the launch press release. If this was truly notable, there would be a lot more coverage in HT/TOI/Hindu and others.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources uncovered, in my opinion, do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per DGG's analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:15, 12 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xange[edit]

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

Non-notable operating system that changed names to eZeY in 2015 and has not been updated since then. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:GNG. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 11:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Filicollis anatis. So Why 07:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filicollosis[edit]

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

This page has been unreferenced (and orphaned) since it was created in 2006, since when the only changes have been to cleanup tags, categories and wikilinks. I could find only a single reference to this term in the scientific literature: ^[2] which is a translation of a German-language article. The only books on Google Books which use this term are copied from this Wikipedia page. If a disease caused by Filicollis species had a name, it could well be called filicollosis, but this term is not used by anyone in the English language for writing about the disease. I request that this page be deleted per these criteria: WP:DEL6 (neologism), WP:DEL7 (no reliable source), WP:DEL8 (not notable, no significant coverage). DferDaisy (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Posh Secure Signing Of Highly-Rated Kanu". Peterborough F.C. 1 August 2017. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
^ HOFMANN, U., G. GRAFNER, and W. TSCHERNER. "EPIZOOTIOLOGY, CLINICAL COURSE, AND DIAGNOSIS OF ACANTHOCEPHALOSIS (FILICOLLOSIS) IN COMMON DUCK." MONATSHEFTE FUR VETERINARMEDIZIN 44.16 (1989): 576-578.

Maybe it's best to simply create a stub article about the species and redirect it there? Ausir (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and to this end have just created a stub for Filicollis anatis. See what you think. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll add a note on the Organisms sorting page, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Filicollis anatis; nom is correct that "filicollosis" is almost never mentioned in scientific literature, but there's plenty of research on F. anatis—I just found and added highlights from two papers, and the second indicates how detailed the scholarship on this parasite is. Nonetheless, I can't find enough about the pathophysiology of infection in the final host (waterbirds) for an article on Filicollis infection as a disease (from the host's "perspective"); in the literature, that seems to be mostly discussed in the generality of Helminthiasis. FourViolas (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azendoo[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable software product / private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes are is PR-driven or passing mentions, such as directory-like listings. Created by Special:Contributions/Raphael.audet with no other contributions outside this topic. Raised about $3 million in funding which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Not seeing notability at this time; reads like a press release/promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability in the french software industry is well established by numerous articles in tech/business press. Arguments that the article has an advertorially tone does not justify deletion, rather page edition would be more adapted. Ichikokoko (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichikokoko: I've asked on your Talk page if you happen to be affiliated with the company, about a week ago: User_talk:Ichikokoko. Could you let me know? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor is associated with the company; please see disclosure here: [20]. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, sourcing outside of standard press releases or trivial mentions is limited.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I fortunately speak French enough to read the sources but even those, are simply announcements or notices (2, 3, 6, 13-15, 18, (22 is a press release notice, FYI), 23, 25, 33-35 and 37-38. This is not nearly the independent significant coverage by WP:CORP and WP:N and since we can actually apply our WP:Deletion policy#14 which itself mentions "Anything unsuitable for an encyclopedia". The one Keep vote has stated they have a WP:COI and, while that may not immediately a criteria for deletion, the need to remove whatever promotionalism exists, actually is. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect there is consensus here that the article can be redirected to the school, and the only !vote for outright deletion mentions listing the sub-unit in the article, which is a strong argument for redirection as well. After talking to the original editor who relisted, I'm closing this as redirect because I think there is a clear consensus in favour of that outcome without the need for another 7 days of discussion. (non-admin closure) . TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plano ISD Health Sciences Academy[edit]

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

A local high school academic program with little independent coverage, essentially local, at least as far as Google has indexed. Doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Change of mind: I recommend redirecting to the school district.Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - This is not a school, but a program. WP:BEFORE shows no coverage outside the local area. As this is a program, not a diploma-granting institution, our traditional lower hurdle to notability does not apply and this program would need to meet WP:ORG. It doesn't. A redirect to Plano Independent School District would be an acceptable outcome. John from Idegon (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per my addendum to my nomination, above. Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The school district is the best redirect target, particularly since the program is split over two schools. Meters (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a sub-unit within a larger high school, may be mentioned in article on the high school, no justification for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:11, 2 August 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Paolo[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page for an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. The claim to notability in the article as the CEO of one of the first internet companies has not resulted in sources that discuss the subject of the article directly and in detail: sample book search result; I'm seeing directory listings only. Article has a history of apparent SPA / COI based editing, with maintenance tags persistently removed by IPs. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; pure promotion.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional article that was likely commissioned by an undeclared paid editor in violation of the terms of use. Local policy also excludes it per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Organic Market[edit]

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

Non-notable store chain. Google search shows that it exists. Google search is primarily about its bankruptcy, which this article promotionally glosses over. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced puff piece.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Promotional article about a non-notable business. All the available sources are the usual run-of-the-mill fluff every business gets. Reyk _YO! 07:22, 10 August 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Sutton[edit]

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

Generally unsourced biography that doesn't show how she is significant to her voice acting world. Being a voice double for The Powerpuff Girls toys, but not the cartoon itself. None of the anime shows are with prominent starring roles. Biography section seems copied from some other website profile as it is unsourced. WP:TOOSOON? Also no anime conventions. [21] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC) updated 00:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to draft: Major reconstruction of the entire article is necessary before it is ready to be republished. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially per nom. Unable to find any sourcing, behindtheactors and imdb are essentially directory listings, no indepth coverage. I'm not sure drafting a 2 year old article will gain much. Someone can always ask for it to be userified later if they start work again. At Draft, it'll just end up deleted as abandoned. -- ferret (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER for lacking significant roles. A search for sources came up empty and resulted in online profiles and false positives for people with the same name. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:10, 2 August 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. Unanimous consensus to delete, other than a couple of socks. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CDM Electronics, Inc.[edit]

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

Previous discussion was closed as speedy deleted per CSD G12 as virtually every sentence was a copyvio from a new source. I'd like to return the article to AfD to test the consensus of the community of on the merits of the article: all of the sourcing is either primary sourcing, trade magazines, or press releases, failing the test of WP:N that requires the sourcing to be independent. Additionally, it fails WP:N because it is currently written promotionally, thus being excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, this article is similar to the previous one, and the points against it remains the same. The coverage of the subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and consists of trivial mentions or "About CDM" citations.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted I spoke with the Wikipedia community about this article before, and I have discovered what seemed to be promotional and have removed all promotional content. In addition, I have provided three additional independent sources to provide a backbone to this article while removing the source that mentions "About CDM" in the citation. I firmly believe that this article should not be deleted, considering there is plenty of opportunity for this page to grow in the Wikipedia community. I would also like the opportunity to further research the company CDM Electronics, Inc. and improve the content on this article even more. — Wholeteam39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:53, 27 July 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- strictly advertorial with sections such as "Authorized distribution lines" and "Current work". Distribution companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark with its WP:SPIP sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fixed the issues listed above and firmly believe that the article CDM Electronics, Inc. is completely informational rather than an advertorial article. In addition, the article is backed by several secondary sources. The article now meets both WP:NOTSPAM and WP:CORPDEPTH standards.--Wholeteam39 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete The editors of CDM Electronics, Inc. seem to have resolved all of the issues listed above, and the page therefore meets both WP:NOTSPAM and WP:CORPDEPTH standards. I have also noticed that this page already contains categories, and is not an orphan. CDM Electronics, Inc. seems to be a legitimate company.--Anthonyjvezza (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Anthonyjvezza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note to closing admin: Anthonyjvezza (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 12:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kavi Anil Patil[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO with only primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 15:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN poet lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. It appears when outright removal of CSD tags failed to stop deletion process, the author created this second article to try to stop deletion. reddogsix (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the alternate titles used, in case the author disrupts the process again:

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

-- Cabayi (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. The author originally created Anil Patil which I tagged BLPPROD, then added a non-reliable source, blanked the first article and recreated it at this title or Anil Anantrao Patil where BLPPROD could no longer be applied. The author is blatantly gaming the system. Cabayi (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GeoffreyT2000 & reddogsix in case the additional nominations affect their votes/comments in any way. Cabayi (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the earlier (deleted) edits are by User:Ambar.patil :: may be advertizing himself or a family relative? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:39, 5 August 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) Lourdes 02:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rimon Winery[edit]

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

Not seeing sufficient notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom is justifiably ticked by his discovery that this was created by a paid editor (presently blocked). Nevertheless, the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing in article can be improved (there are quite a bit of sources on this winery - in Hebrew & English). This winery is notable for producing wine from pomegranates - and they are the leaders in this rather small and unique field - and due to this they get/got quite a bit of coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have read through the discussions on User talk:Yinonk and believe the page reads like an advertisement. I do however see that based on whats out there, that it does meet WP:GNG, especially being the first winery to make pomegranate wine. - Galatz ^Talk 16:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just another article in need of an upgrade, but WP:SIGCOV exists, especially teh Haaretz article below.. Here are some that can be added to article:

Haaretz: "Israeli Family Takes Pomegranate Wine to Heady Heights" [22]
Vogue Italia: "Seminascosta tra le montagne di Galilea c'è la Rimon Winery, la prima cantina al mondo a produrre vino (ma anche prodotti di bellezza e olio)...." [23]
La Stampa: "Ma dove potrete imbattervi anche in Rimon Winery, l'unica cantina al mondo che produce vino dai melograni. Altre regioni vinicole importanti ..." [24]E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think all three are already in the article. It definitely still needs work, but I removed all the stuff that sounded like an advertisement and added a bunch of content. I think it now proves its notability. - Galatz ^Talk 20:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: you are not new to this. Please don't repeated bolded !votes per WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal:I believe you mistook E.M.Gregory's comments which I responded to as my comments. I have rebolded his and removed the strike out, and I added an extra spacing to mine to make it visually easier to see. - Galatz ^Talk 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yes. Sorry! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The broad coverage about the winery in the article and available to be added more than satisfies the minimum levels of notability for this winery. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Fontanive[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Most of the sources provided are primary (e,g. [25]), irrelevant ([26]), or adverts ([27]). A WP:BEFORE search indicates they have made little or no impact in coverage by reliable sources (GScholar, GBooks, or GNews, for example), certainly not of the depth or persistence required to pass WP:ANYBIO. — fortunavelut luna 14:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks very promotional and hardly notable --

Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...)

14:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything in Gbooks, Gsearch, Gnews -- Gnews has results on a minor football player of the same name. The Cambridge e-Learnning Institute (sic; yes that's how it's spelled in the disclaimer on their webpage, "learnning"), has no affiliation with the university of the same name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant PROMO that is unsupported by any acceptable sources. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 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. Nothing indicates that either GNG or NACTOR has been met here. Courcelles (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bria Roberts[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of an actress, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NACTOR and no valid reliable sourcing. The notability claims here involve appearances on reality and pseudoreality shows, such as playing a plaintiff on a judge show and appearing in a 1000 Ways to Die scene (a show in which non-speaking extras act out the scene while the only voice the viewer hears is that of the show's narrator), and the referencing here is entirely to primary and unreliable sources, such as IMDb, a Facebook post, a video clip on the website of the network that airs one of the shows she was in, a "weird news" blurb on the Huffington Post and a database of film posters. As always, a person does not get a free pass over NACTOR just because she's acted -- she gets over NACTOR when her acting has been the subject of reliable source coverage in media, but none has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Fails WP:NACTOR. FITINDIA 18:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, the original comment contains some incorrect information. Roberts was not an extra on 1000 Ways to Die, she was the lead actress who spoke many lines. She was also nominated for an award by Disney and Lucas Film last year. And I watched her NBC interview last year. She has broken 3 Guinness World Records as a contortionist, all of which aired on TV. She isn't just an actress but also contortionist and has been on lots of shows. Her role on America's Court was not reality or pseudoreality. America's Court is categorized as a drama. She played a mom with kids and her name was Maria. She was acting, not being herself. For more sources, she's on the Today Show website and some other places. User:Floppy292

— Floppy292 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are no "lead actresses" on 1000 Ways to Die; it's an anthology show where each episode consists of three or four discrete "sketches" cast with one-off actors, and appearing on it does not count as a "major" role for the purposes of WP:NACTOR's "major role" criterion. America's Court with Judge Ross is a pseudoreality judge show on which actors play the litigants in a small claims court case, not a "drama", and appearing on it does not constitute a "major" role either. And there is no claim of notability that anyone can make that ever entitles them to an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist — a person must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media for an article on here to become earned, so to get this kept you would have to show much better evidence of media coverage about her than is present anywhere in this article right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I still think she meets the criteria. There are "lead actors" and "lead actresses" in 1000 Ways To Die. The definition of a lead actor is someone with the largest part in a piece of work, even in Wikipedia's definition. I think her televised Guinness World Records also make her eligible as an "entertainer." They've been broadcasted worldwide. She is subject of coverage in media. I found some links of her in media. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju4BXxLww7o http://imagecollect.com/picture/bria-roberts-eva-longoria-eva-longoria-parker-photo-4813133/power-players-celebrity-cruise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe0lxSRHES0 http://fast.celebrityphoto.com/celebrity_photos_search/262737?search=Photo%20by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/bria-roberts-contortionist-skips-leg-behind-head_n_4193363.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe0lxSRHES0

  Floppy292 Floppy292 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a television series, a lead actor is a person who has a regular role as a main character across multiple episodes, not just one. Also, YouTube videos, blog entries and photographs in photo repositories do not assist in demonstrating notability under WP:GNG — a source has to represent written content about her in reliable sources, such as real newspapers and real magazines and books. The fact that somebody took video of her performing and posted that to YouTube does not represent reliable sourcing, because anybody can post video to YouTube of anything. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't say she was a lead actor of the "television series". She was the lead actor of the episode titled "Stench of Death." Wikipedia's definition of lead actor states that it can be a film, play, or piece. "The word lead may also refer to the largest role in the piece and leading actor may refer..." She was the lead of the piece. Wikipedia also says it can include people who have recognizable awards in their specialties. Bria has that. And there are sources with written content about her. Yahoo TV News, The Huffington Post, AOL News, and an Australian printed magazine in public circulation. I posted the Huffington link already. Here is the Yahoo TV News link.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/jump-rope-record-attempt-goes-poorly-except-it-totally-doesnt-on-today-203740017.html    Floppy292 21:00, 31 July 2017 (PST)

Quibbling over whether the dictionary definition of "lead actor" covers off the main actors in one 10-minute dramatic reenactment sketch on one episode of a pseudoreality show that has no regular cast doesn't change how Wikipedia's notability criteria work — for starters, our notability criteria for actors do not contain the phrase "lead actor" at all. We do not extend an automatic inclusion freebie to every actor who's ever acted just because they have had roles that can be verified by an IMDb page. What we require is substantive coverage about her acting in reliable sources, such as actual critical reviews of her performances and/or substantial articles about her in the entertainment sections of real newspapers.

But that's not what you're showing: the Yahoo link is a blurb, not a substantive piece; Huffington Post is a source that can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but cannot confer notability by itself if if's the best you can do for sourcing; and "an Australian printed magazine" can't assist notability until you provide a lot more detail about it than you did: it's not enough to just say a magazine article exists, but rather you have to provide the exact name of the magazine and the exact title of the article and the exact issue date in which it was printed. Anybody could claim that sourcing exists for anything — we have to be able to verify that the claimed sourcing actually does exist, which we can't do without its exact and full publication details.

And, for that matter, we don't extend an automatic presumption of notability to every person who can be claimed to hold a world record, either — such people still have to be the subject of better coverage than this before they get an article, especially when their record is for some manufactured distinction that they created for themselves by being the only person in the world ever to even try such a meaningless thing, such as "Most Skips With Leg Behind Head in 60 Seconds". Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails the provisions in WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk 08:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the newly mentioned Yahoo News source. Also, please remember that NACTOR might not be the only applicable guideline (cf. WP:BASIC or WP:GNG)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, she isn't the "only person in the world to try such a meaningless thing," as you worded it. The original record was held by a different person, as explained in the episode of Guinness World Records Unleashed that she was on. She had to break someone else's record. So again, you're providing incorrect negative information. It is correct that she later broke her own record (In the link provided) but her original record on TruTV was breaking someone else's record.

Whether or not you think she meets all the criteria for an actor, she meets the criteria to be included according to other Wikipedia guidelines that SoWhy gave because of the awards in her specialty and media and source coverage.  She has also met criteria for making a unique contribution to entertainment. Floppy292 01:05, 3 August 2017 (PST)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floppy292 (talk • contribs)

It's already been explained above why the sources you're showing don't cut it. Awards only confer notability insofar as the media cover the presentation of that award as news (e.g. Oscars yes, Local Businesswoman of the Year no) — but you're not showing the kind of media coverage that it takes, but mere blurbs and unreliable sources and vague intimations of other coverage you're refusing to name. And you are not making any strong demonstration that she's made a notably "unique" contribution to entertainment, either — every person who exists in the entertainment industry could always claim that their contributions were "unique", by simple virtue of the fact that their contributions were theirs and not somebody else's. What that criterion refers to is unique contributions like being widely recognized as the originator of an entire notable musical genre or an important stylistic innovation within an existing one, not every single thing that could possibly be described as "unique" even though there was nothing important about it, because everybody who exists in any industry could always describe their work as "unique" in some way. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the "media" has covered the presentation of the award. and there are hundreds, yes, hundreds, of people in Wikipedia who's only notable award is a Guinness World Record. A girl who broke the record for longest hair, a guy who broke the record throwing a playing card the farthest, and other things of the sort. they weren't on NBC, yet they're included and considered "unique." Not because they called themselves unique, but Guinness World Records did. They and their awards are respected. Bria Roberts clearly holds a Guinness World Record and was clearly on television and in news for it. The sources showing this are more "reliable" and notable than the sources for the other Guinness World Record holders in Wikipedia. NBC is one of the world's biggest networks and if their own website isn't considered "reliable," then what is? These are all "reliable sources"...NBC News, Yahoo News, Guinness World Records, Today.com She is also on Ellen's verified page.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/can-woman-set-guinness-record-for-jumping-rope-with-a-leg-behind-her-head-760405571555 http://www.today.com/video/can-woman-set-guinness-record-for-jumping-rope-with-a-leg-behind-her-head-760405571555 http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-skips-with-one-leg-behind-the-head-in-one-minute https://www.yahoo.com/tv/jump-rope-record-attempt-goes-poorly-except-it-totally-doesnt-on-today-203740017.html http://www.spike.com/video-clips/9ni4z6/1000-ways-to-die- http://entertainment-newsss.blogspot.com/2013/11/bria-roberts-contortionist-attempts.html Floppy292 5:13, 6 August 2017

Blogspot and Yahoo News are not reliable sources; Spike's and Guinness's own self-published websites are not independent sources; and the problem with the NBC/Today links is that they're not substantive coverage about her accomplishing a trivial feat, but simply video clips of her accomplishing a trivial feat. They do not represent substantive coverage about her for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG, because they don't verify anything about her biography. You're simply not providing, and appear not to even understand, what kind of sources are actually needed to get a person into Wikipedia — none of the links you've provided so far represent the type of sources we require. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loanbaba.com[edit]

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

May fail at WP:WEBCRIT. There is one passing mention at NDTV website, but it doesn't look enough for WP:GNG. Hitro talk 13:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I don't see how this business could be considered notable. PK T(alk) 13:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete, non notable business. Ajf773 (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I agree with the Captain. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:59, 4 August 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 withdrawn. Since this AfD was started, multiple users have improved the article such that it is not eligible for deletion. I commend these users for their actions. I may even further improve it myself at some point. On a side note, a frequently used fallacious argument I find at AfD is that "sources exist, such as [1] [2] [3]." To those who !voted and provided this as a rationale: add them! Saying a topic is notable is all well and good but sources aren't going to add themselves: we assess articles on their current state, not on things outside of Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 18:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasraj[edit]

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

The singer fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lots of irrelevant and unsourced information in the "Early life" and "Personal life" sections. There's a lot of puffery throughout and the sources show a lack of notability.

Source 1 is a broken link.
Source 2 is written like an advertisement and Jasraj is not the primary subject.
Source 3 is a book in which I can only presume he is mentioned in passing as he is not the primary topic, failing WP:SIGCOV.
Source 4 is just an anniversary: fails WP:1EVENT. Having a birthday doesn't make one notable.
Source 5 is a miscellaneous collection of interviews, none of which confer notability.
Source 6 is a broken link.
Source 7 is about his wife: notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.
Source 8 is a massive list of minor award-recipients, all of which can gain no claim of notability as the award is not a Grammy etc which gives automatic notability per WP:MUSICBIO.
Source 9 is a press release and a broken link.

So sources 2, 4 and 5 could in any way be considered the sources which are primarily about him, none of which appear to be more than either opinion pieces, birthday celebrations or random information. Most of the important music-related claims are unsourced and I cannot find any sources which could back them up.

DrStrauss talk 13:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject in discussion is a recipient of both India's second-highest civilian award - Padma Vibhushan & third-highest civilian award - Padma Bhushan (And also, Sangeet Natak Akademi Award). Regarding the sources listed one has to admit it does not provide enough vital information. The article can be improved with well written, broad coverage and better referencing. -Ninney (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Admittedly the article is a mess. But notability is not a question here per Ninney. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Meets the criteria for 'Others' within WP:NMUSIC which is for "composers and performers outside mass media traditions". Apparently a legendary musician who was deemed worthy of a tribute concert in a 60,000 seater stadium to recognise their 80 year musical career. The article can be improved. Why are we discussing this??? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability not in question: has been given India's second highest civilian award, several thousands of news stories, several thousands google books hits...@DrStrauss: I'd suggest you withdraw this nomination: it is highly unlikely to go anywhere. Indeed I almost closed it as a "Speedy keep" myself. Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. A Google search on "jasraj music award" turned up this: Pandit Jasraj to receive lifetime achievement award, on the first page of results. I wish I could honestly say "Speedy keep" but this travesty of an AfD doesn't quite meet the current very restrictive standards of WP:KEEP, though it might well make a good argument for broadening those standards. I agree entirely with Vanamonde that DrStrauss ought to withdraw the nomination.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I was about to withdraw it but after reading all the !votes I have decided that I would prefer it to run its 7-day course. I noticed Curb Safe Charmer listed it under the Article Rescue Squadron-related articles and I think closing it now would remove the impetus to improve it. Whether he's notable or not, the article is an absolute mess (per RegentsPark) and a pending deletion discussion spurs on improvement. TL;DR: admins, please don't prematurely close this. DrStrauss talk 14:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets WP:GNG. Very well-known Indian classical musician. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Oi, no love for the his beautiful khayals? I'm not trying to be rude but what a poor nomination. A brief WP:BEFORE check quickly reveals a bounty of reliable sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - loads of sources and an awardee - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelaparambu Family[edit]

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

Unverifiable Fram (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I deleted many in this class some time ago. Vanity pages like this are something we Keralites desire.Jupitus Smart 10:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The origin of the St Thomas Christians is a significant subject, but we have other articles on it. This article appears to be quoting at length a chronicle without any citation. IN any event a long quotation from a chronicle does not make a satisfactory WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caterina Parigi[edit]

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

I love art, but this is going a bit too far. She studied art when she was seventeen, but we have no further information, no works, no records beyond that one mention... she simply is not a notable artist by any stretch of the definition (note that for artists, just like for some other groups like nobility, there are books which don't specifically select notable members, but try to list every single one of them: being included in such books shouldn't count towards notability if there is literally nothing to be said about the person) Fram (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable artiste. Quis separabit? 12:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only because of the presence of a contemporary source (suggests to me she was notable enough that someone at the time picked up on her work). I admit I was pushing it a bit with this one, though, so if it's deleted I've no objection. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 12:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete We have no mention of any works by Parigi. We have no clue at all what happened to her after 1738. She does not in any way fit any definition of notability. I have to admit part of me is frustrated that we have so few articles on ever leaders in pre-colonial Ghana, I justcreated the article on Babatu (warlord) probably the over-arching figure in what is now northern Ghana during the last 2 decades of the 19th-century, yesterday. Yet we have an article on someone in the early 18th-century in Europe who literally did nothing. I am all for avoiding presentist bias, which we see in the extreme with an article on a Nigerian tabloid celebrity but lacking one on the first female Nigerian finance minister of the same name. But keeping articles on people who we know nothing substantive about is just not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:20, 11 August 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) Greenbörg (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Haider[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Ngrewal1 is requesting to keep this ghazal singer's article. He had many popular hit songs to his credit in the 1980s - 1990s. I am confident I can improve this article, if given a chance and some time as I have been doing since 2012. In my view, he's a notable singer from Pakistan.Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngrewal1:Withdrawn per your suggestion. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ngrewal. Appears to be a genuine ghazal artist per his iTunes profile, and [28] [29]. More sources may be found in Urdu. Mar4d (talk) 18:33, 3 August 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) Greenbörg (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hameed Chapra[edit]

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

Not enough coverage for him. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep this says "Abdul Hameed Chhapra, was like a godfather to Karachi’s journalist community." --Saqib (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McNutt[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. reddogsix (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails to cite substantive sources, and the subject fails WP:TOOSOON. Note that while several sources establish who the article subject is, (most reference a connection to his families' fruit cake business) they do not cover the subject in depth beyond his candidacy, which by itself does not confer notability per WP:NOTE. Other sources that only contain adds for the candidate ([30]), are non third party ([31] [32]), or are standard press releases ([33]) should be discounted.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. My first idea was a redirect to Collin Street Bakery, which mentions McNutt. However, I think there's a high chance that would misdirect people who are actually looking for Thomas MacNutt. I appreciate the efforts Flatoncsi has gone to in an attempt to rescue this, but although there's a possibility the election itself meets our notability criteria, McNutt himself just does not. Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections — if you cannot show and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides the fact of being a candidate, then he has to win the election and become an actual holder of political office, not just have his name on the ballot, to get an article for his political activities. But nothing here demonstrates that: all of the sources here are either primary source references to his own campaign literature, or local election coverage of the type that's routinely expected to exist for all elections, so nothing here demonstrates that his candidacy would somehow qualify as that exceedingly rare "notable because his candidacy exploded to garner a lot more coverage than normal" special case either. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wyman[edit]

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

Previously deleted as non-notable in 2015. While not applicable for G4, not much seems to have changed since then as I'm still unable to find substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not sufficiently notable, fails WP:BIO Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:41, 9 August 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 due to sourcing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Bechtel[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a German television presenter, which makes no actual claim of notability and contains no valid reliable sourcing for it -- as written, this just states that she was born, got her first job, got married, the end, and the only reference present is a primary source that doesn't even verify any of that content. And while the article on de is longer than this one is, it isn't sourced any better, so simply translating it isn't the key to a keep here. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better, but this isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 08:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TNT. I translated some GNews articles and found some. "Aleks" appears to be pretty popular 1, interview, 3, appears to have created a diet or some health thing. Obviously there are some issues with determining the exact wording of the German sources (mein Deutsch eist wenig) but I think she is notable. ~~I am busy writing another article so I can't drop the nukes now, but I will try to add the sources to the article.~~ Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the article is better. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss L3X1's changes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable TV presenter (both from the early ages of VIVA and later at Big Brother Germany). —Kusma (t·c) 08:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to L3X1. The article does still need expansion, obviously, but there's enough reliable sourcing present now to cover off the main reason why I listed this — so I'm hereby withdrawing the nomination. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 3 August 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. (non-admin closure) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K. Jeffrey Miller[edit]

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

Not notable. Once the self-published sources from his business at examdoc.com are stripped away all that's left is an ~~associate~~ assistant professorship which fails WP:NACADEMIC. Cabayi (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see any contribution to medical science. Else, just promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Do not Delete Removing content from ExamDoc.com, adding more content from outside sources. Benjaminjsmiller (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)benjaminjsmillerBenjaminjsmiller (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)— Benjaminjsmiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
- Do you have any WP:COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Article is promotional garbage and the subject is nowhere near notability. I don't think WP:NACADEMIC even applies: his degrees are from dubious institutions, his publications are all in chiropractic pseudoscience, and I can't find a reliable source to verify that he is an assistant professor at Missouri. And as far as I can tell there are no independent sources that would count towards the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject appears to have published a few books and has a column in a magazine but the only source providing coverage is his own website. There isn't really anything to suggest notability when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plenty of reference BY him. Nothing ABOUT him. A VOA piece was a short review of a book. Rhadow (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a totally non-notable chiropractor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a run of the mill chiropractor and an allegedly prolific scholar who's been cited exactly once according to Google scholar. This is bordering on spam. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 8 August 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. Perhaps a merge RfC can be held. (non-admin closure) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures)[edit]

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

No WP:NN. Rævhuld (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've never watched nor have any interest in the programme, but I know many programmes have wiki articles associated with fictional characters and for all intents and purposes, this is reasonably well written. The character is no less notable than the other wiki articles for other characters of this programme. An AfD of this nature should instead consider every character of a programme for a wider discussion of notability, rather than singling out just one. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A partial merge to List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters would make more sense than deletion. There are a lot of media things covering Dr Who but not sure how many extend to SJA. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it makes no difference to me personally, the only reason I didn't suggest a merge was due to a) the amount of prose that someone would have to condense and b) whether the character is significant enough to warrant not being on a minor characters article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with partial Merge - the plot summary stuff detailing each appearance is best left to individual episode summaries though, if of importance there. Artw (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Mr Smith is an important character in the show, often aiding the gang in their adventures. He has just as much, if not more, relevance than the likes of Sky Smith - who has her own page despite appearing in 3 stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:281A:8F00:F12C:61B7:F0AE:88E2 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hunter Douglas. Although I've !voted the nom has since agreed with merging so seems pointless keeping this open any longer (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillarys Blinds[edit]

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

Not seeing much in the references to denote notability. Simply non-notable awards, and news of it being bought out. They do have a Guinness record, but notability isn't inherited. WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Hunter Douglas - I'm only finding sources on the takeover and nothing more essentially making this ONEEVENT, The info in the article could be sourced with cites from their website however I would prefer sources outside of their website which unfortunately there isn't any, Anyway bits of the article/takeoever can be merged into Hunter Douglas. –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As nominator, I believe Davey's rationale and proposed solution is solid. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ATD. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable wedding DJ who fails WP:N A7 was declined about a year ago but there was no followup by the original tagger. Article is also promotional in tone and excluded by WP:NOTSPAM, but not sufficient enough for G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable "wedding and events DJ" (d'oh!). Spam / sock origins (created as a redirect, and filled up with puffery). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- no reliable sources to establish notability. References provided in the article are not considered reliable. Sundartripathi (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:00, 11 August 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 G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anatha_Gulati SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseba Sandoval[edit]

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

Nominating article for deletion on notability grounds. The sources cited by the article describe the subject as a photographer and cite his photos ([34] [35] [36]), but are not based on the subject himself. The Huffington Post article cited [37] likewise refers to the subject as a photographer and quotes him, but the article itself is not about him and quotations of the subject are minor. The final source cited is owned by the subject [38] and falls under WP:COI. This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion by myself on notability and advertising grounds. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article contains numerous sources such as [39] [40] [41] which contain significant coverage about the subject, therefore the article passes WP:GNG. The articles do not have to only cover the subject alone to count towards notability. To use the inclusion standards outlined by nominator above would leave practically nothing that would count. Please see WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of enough ghits[42] including non-English sources. The subject is noatble and meets BLP criteria. Accuren (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my inquiry, none of the results provided by the search you linked turned up any results for the article subject. Most turn up a reference to Sandoval and nothing else.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources currently on the page provide in-depth coverage of Sandoval, as required to meet the general notability guideline. Google hits are not an indicator of notability. My own searches have found no reliable, independent sources where Sandoval is the subject or discussed in depth. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:49, 3 August 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. Two delete !votes are based on failing WP:NPOL without any discussion of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Bearcat mentions GNG but does not address sources brought later despite relists. So Why 06:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Mutua[edit]

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

There is some notability, but from my POV not quite enough. He wasn't even elected to parliament. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our notability criteria for politicians do not include "ran in a nomination contest or primary and lost" — a person has to hold office, not just run for it, to be considered notable as a politician per se. But the claims of notability as a lawyer aren't automatic notability passes either — being chairman of the Law Society has potential, but it would still require more than just one piece of media coverage about his initial election to that role to clear WP:GNG for it, such as some properly sourced substance about things he did in that role. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as chairman of the Law Society of Kenya that alone I believe makes them notable, ignoring the ran but failed political career. As chairman of a governmentally set up body that it is mandatory for all lawyers to be part of, I believe that provides notability. Needs expanding and more references though. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to just assume that maybe the referencing might be improvable — the equation is not "notability comes first and then maybe referencing", but rather the referencing inherently defines the notability or lack thereof. For a poorly referenced article to get a presumption of notability on the grounds that it's improvable, it has to be shown that the necessary depth of sourcing does exist — an article about a person can make no notability claim that confers an automatic "notable because X has been stated even if proper sources for it don't exist anywhere". So it's not enough to say that it "needs more references" — it needs to be definitively shown that there are more references that can be added to fulfill that need. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Bearcat. The subject of the article was not elected to parliament, and thus the article doesn't pass WP:NPOL. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 21:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough to get in through NPOL. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat's statement. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject appears to be covered in several large news outlets that cover election events: The Kenya Star 1, The Kenya Star 2, The Daily Nation 1, and The Daily Nation 2 for example. There are a fair number of additional articles in these two publications, which are the top two newspapers in Kenya. It seems that Mantua was involved in some significant and interesting election drama that netted him some news coverage. This establishes notability alone. With some expansion relying on this coverage, the article itself will improve in quality. Malinaccier (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis of sources presented late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did anyone do a WP:BEFORE here? There's tons of news coverage of this guy, and not just related to the election he lost. Here's an article about him being called to the Supreme Court in 2013. Here's coverage of him starting his term as Chairman of the Law Society, and here's coverage of him ending. Here's another article focused on just him and his supporters. And those don't even include ones where he's just quoted. This is substantial coverage. Just because he happened to then lose an election does not mean he's non-notable. agtx 21:30, 7 August 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. So Why 06:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahaguru (2007 film)[edit]

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

Found no coverage of this film in reliable sources. This film thus fails WP:NFILM, just like the 1985 film, which was also nominated for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film is a notable successful Bengali film of actor Mithun Chakraborty.Rajeshbieee (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources are cited. The source is ~~The Telegraph~~ The Telegraph (Calcutta) passes WP:GNG Anoptimistix (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source suggested as supporting notability, a list of statistics in The Telegraph (Calcutta), clearly fails WP:GNG. It is not in-depth coverage of the film. It is merely a list of basic statistics for seven different films, and it says almost nothing about this film. The fact that some particular actor is in it means nothing, because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. To establish notability, the topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and "multiple sources are generally expected". This article clearly fails the test. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Was not in the Relisted 3 Times category all week, for some reason. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Irvine rescinded controversy[edit]

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

An egregious 80-word violation of WP:CONTENTFORK, copy+pasted verbatim from the parent article (without attribution), for no discernible good reason. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_California,_Irvine&diff=793202689&oldid=792508948 Ethanbas ^(talk) 03:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...seriously? ~~Redirect~~ back to the parent article. No need for a separate one. WP:NOTNEWS and all that. ansh666 10:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't notice that the title lacked the word "admissions" - delete as implausible redirect along with everything else wrong with it. ansh 666 18:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Note that the current title is completely unsuitable for a redirect and should be deleted. It makes no sense. "Rescinded controversy"???? If that phrase means anything, it means a controversy which has been rescinded. Possibly "University of California, Irvine rescinded admissions controversy", but I'm not sure any redirect is warranted for this utter trivia. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork that violates NOTNEWS. James (^talk/_contribs) 05:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:58, 11 August 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) ansh 666 04:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Longstaff[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOOPS by no current notable achievements as a player or coach. Yosemiter (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Close, but no cigar. Yosemiter is correct. South Nashua (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep subject of multiple national and major regional pieces, including USA Today, ESPN, New York Daily News and Sports Illustrated.--TM 16:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Namiba's work is enough to meet WP:SPORTCRIT for me, if just barely. There's probably more out there that can be added to improve things here if there's this much already. South Nashua (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe passes the GNG as a coach. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. By User:Cullen328 as G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump resistance. Malinaccier (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump resistance[edit]

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

Topic already covered elsewhere ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - just deleted via AfD in June here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump resistance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are questionable, the claims are even more questionable, and the grouping together of the subjects, and using sources that claim this skews "female" and then listing a male as the only named participant just shows sloppy writing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there really is a Trump Resistance. It's a big deal, albeit a tad amorphous. So, while this is a paltry stub written by an SPA whose lone edit it is, I think that the topic merits an article. Editor who closed the previous article User:Drmies writes that User: NewsAndEventsGuy and I made some useful improvements to the previous article. @Drmies:, I wonder whether he or I wrote a lede, or organized the article in a way that is at all useful or that could be retrieved. As a start to turning this into a respectable start on an acceptable article. I have posted this on the Rescue list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue working for now. It's true there was just an AfD, but EM Gregory came late and posted a list of sources specific to "Resistance" -- only 3 votes came in after him and 2 were Keep "per EM Gregory". There is some kind of campaign(s), organized or not, around the word "Resist". I get them in my mailbox! This is different from protesting. It's also used for fundraising for example. I'd like to see the article provide more context and backstory, where the "Resist" meme started and how it become institutionalized. It's exactly like the Stop Trump movement. -- GreenC 02:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to fundraising, there's also a grassroots movement in which Democrats without prior political experience are lining in large numbers to try to flip districts currently held by Republicans. For example, eight Democrats have already lined up to challenge Barbara Comstock in 2018. This is being encouraged by organizations under the "Trump resistance" umbrella. 172.56.3.174 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many problems as described above. It would be undue to redirect to Indivisible movement, but that seems like the logical target. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Comment - if the article is kept, at the very least the entirety of the current content should be deleted. It is obviously a pertinent topic, but I think it is covered well in articles like Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Anti-Trump protests. Not to mention there is an article for every single controversy Trump was involved in. There is a lot of Trump coverage on WP. The Article for deletion makes it sound like Donald Trump resistance is a political party, and arbitrarily recites facts which may or may not be true. Just my opinion. I totally understand the keep, but this would be a complete re-write - and to accurately cover the issue would need a substantial article - I would say the readers would be better served perhaps by a list of anti-Trump sentiment articles. Poor wording but you understand. Maybe there already is something, like I said, the Trump article count is astronomical. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, look at the into to Anti-Trump protests (I just noticed this): "Anti-Trump movement" redirects here. For the conservative-led anti-Trump movement during his presidential campaign, see Never Trump movement. Further information: Timeline of protests against Donald Trump --‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to proposals to redirect to protests against Donald Trump, one might ask, was it just a protest or is it something more? 97.34.194.35 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El cid, el campeador, It is precisely because we have such an enormous number of article about opposition to Trump that we need an article on "Opposition to the Donald Trump Presidency", the "Anti-Trump movement," or whatever-we-decied-to-call-it; a "master" article, much as we have for Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War, Abolitionism and other big topics. (After giving this some thought, I think that an good aritcle on "The Trump Resistance", focused on the further left segment of the American left that favors the word "resistance" could be written.) I, however, am not presently inclined to write such articles. I VERY MUCH LIKE your suggestion that we start a list to collect this explosion of articles, this embarras des richesses.. If a capable editor steps forward to revise and make this into a good article, or, atl least, a good enough article, I will support keeping. I do, obviously, agree that it cannot be kept in the condition in which it stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I just created a short, focal article - a stub - on a new movement that is getting [[WP:SIGCO}, Antifa (U.S.). It doesn't exactly fit Protests against Donald Trump, and I wished that I had an article to link "Trump resistance" to when I wrote the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue with the absence of such an article. You can link to Protests against Donald Trump which pretty much aggregates all protest movements with their name/issue-of-the-week titles. — JFG ^talk 07:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a good run at trying to make an incomplete list of Trump controversies, but truthfully it became too much haha. But, look here [[Category:Donald Trump controversies]]. It is a pretty good collection of relevant controversies, protests, resistance, etc. Obviously a category is not as good as an article, but it can be considered the 'center' of the issue. I will tag your new article with one of the sub-cats. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Pure WP:SYNTH. May redirect the title to Protests against Donald Trump, like Trump resistance was. — JFG ^talk 02:59, 6 August 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 G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taal-Net Group of Schools[edit]

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

It is with great trepidation that I bring this to AfD, given WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and all. But, despite my efforts, I couldn't establish this meeting WP:GNG. Additionally, it is written so promotionally, it's hard to think it could survive without a total rewrite. I'm happy to be wrong about this, but this entirely unsourced private school article seems to warrant a deletion discussion. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G11 material for sure - I've tagged it. DrStrauss talk 15:30, 3 August 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. Merge discussion can be held on the talk page if desired, but it seems that there is consensus in this discussion to keep the article as-is. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galina Dodon[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only the fact that she is the wife of the President of Moldova does not make her notable. XXN, 21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article does need more substance and better referencing, we do accept national First Ladies as notable — even if they hold the position primarily by virtue of who they're married to, the position itself is still a notable public role in its own right. For that very reason, WP:NOTINHERITED specifically states that national first ladies are not deemed non-notable on "inherited" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Igor Dodon - WP:BASIC still applies, and an official biography, along with an article that rehashes that biography, is simply not enough to indicate significant coverage.
I find Bearcat's line of reasoning deficient on two grounds: first, WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not policy; second, the line about the first lady (in particular, the American first lady, who'll always have loads of coverage) is merely an example, not a dispositive finding that all spouses of national leaders are notable.
This individual's accomplishments can easily be summarized in about two lines. There's really no need for a separate article to do that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly matters whether you find my reasoning "persuasive" or not. Firstly, WP:ONLYESSAY is invalid reasoning in an AFD discussion, as essays are binding expressions of the rules that pertain in the absence of a specific reason to treat the case at hand differently from the established practice for other comparable topics. And secondly, that rule is not limited to First Ladies of the United States; we also have articles, for example, about Justin Trudeau's and Emmanuel Macron's and Jacob Zuma's and Narendra Modi's wives, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife, Theresa May's and Angela Merkel's husbands, and on and so forth — and most of them don't have the kinds of independent accomplishments that would have gotten them into an encyclopedia independently of being a national leader's spouse either. But the simple fact is that being a national leader's spouse is in and of itself a role that gets a person into an encyclopedia right on its own face, period — not because "inherited notability", but because it is a notable role in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just cited an essay to support a claim that an essay is binding. According to WP:POLICIES, which is an actual policy, "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval."

I never claimed only US first ladies are notable. I merely pointed out the example in the essay is an obvious straw man - of course the wife of the American president will always be notable. When it comes to Moldova (or Bulgaria, or Cape Verde, or Djibouti, or Estonia, or Fiji, or Sri Lanka, or Slovakia, or Tunisia, or Tajikistan, or Switzerland), the case is less clear.

It comes down to significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. If the only thing to be said about someone is that she is married to a head of state, then no, that really is not enough for standalone notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay". Congratulations, that's the most tautological nothingburger of an argument I've ever seen in almost 15 years of contributing to Wikipedia. Please note the following: "We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made."

At any rate, WP:GNG is not solely a question of whether the article's quality is already up to scratch or not — even a poorly sourced article can still be kept if it's demonstrated that the sourcing necessary to repair it with exists, regardless of whether it's actually present in the article yet or not. So for a person with a strong and properly verified notability claim, what would need to be shown to get the article deleted isn't that it's inadequate in its current state, but that it's entirely unrepairable because the depth of sourcing we require for GNG simply isn't out there to be found and added. Lots of Wikipedia articles are inadequate in their current state, but still have a valid and properly sourced notability claim that buys them the time to get better — but we keep or delete articles based on whether or not they're improvable, not just whether or not they're already perfect.

So if you really want this deleted, it's not enough to just argue that the article's current state is inadequate — the notability claim is one that Wikipedia accepts, so what would need to be shown is some hard evidence that the article can't be improved because better sources about her don't even exist. And as for those other redlinked first ladies you pointed out, it's not that they fundamentally lack basic notability — the only thing stopping any of them from happening is that nobody's gotten around to it yet. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it so happens that such sources really don't exist, at least as far as I can tell. The only other one I've been able to find, and which isn't a direct rehash of the official biography, is this. In it, we find out the following highly interesting data: in 2014, Mrs. Dodon earned a base salary of 110,568 lei, which fell to 54,075 lei the following year. In the same period, her social insurance payments amounted to 42,893 and 33,887 lei, respectively. The family owns a plot of land (0.059 hectares) and a house (422.8 m²) in Chișinău - and both are registered in Igor and Galina's name. Galina also has two bank accounts: one for social payments, totaling 16,839 lei; the other, a salary account, has 65,427 lei. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 02:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Igor Dodon, as is common for spouses and close relatives of notable people. Galina's article is really short so could easily be merged, Igor's article has very little information about his family beyond the fact that they exist (not even names), and there's no clear evidence that she's notable or there's anything much to say. If someone can find good sources in other languages, then fair enough, expand the article instead. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a presumption of notability for national First ~~Ladies~~ spouses. This is an international encyclopedia, and the community consensus is that the position affords the presumption of notability, which not limited by country or nation. So, a national legislator in Nahru is treated similarly to a national legislator in India. Once there is a presumption of notability, all that is needed is a reliably sourced statement that the subject holds that position (which could be an independent news source or an official government publication). --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that WP:POLITICIAN specifically applies to national legislators in a way it doesn't to first spouses, for which no presumption of notability has been demonstrated. I agree we should have a line about this individual in her husband's biography - one line being about the extent of what reliable sources have to say about her. However, there's really no call for a standalone article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat and Enos733. She is the First Lady of a modern nation. I would oppose a merge, though this article could be expanded and probably should be. But length or quality are not the same as notability, this is a clear keep. Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Bearcat. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:53, 11 August 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. Essentially, nobody agreed that the search result presented by Steevven1 returned any sources that could be used to show notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CardRates.com[edit]

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

In my opinion the page does not qualify for WP:NOTE and some sources do not qualify per WP:VER. One source [43] is a blog with a trivial mention of the subject. One is a page on a independent, but sponsored chamber of commerce website [44], which serves as the basic descriptor of the subject. Other sources cite the subject's own website ([http://www.cardrates.com/scholarship/] [http://www.cardrates.com/about/]), or are third party sources with content sponsored by the subject ([45]). That leaves the Forbes sources, one of which [46] only mentions Cardrates.com as a past employer of the writer of the article (note that this article is produced by Forbes/nextavenue, and is written by contributors, labeled as *Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own* by Forbes), while the second [47] is attributed to the current CTO of Creditrates.com and is likewise created by contributors not employed by Forbes. In short, no verifiable sources, claims that could be read as adverts, and lack of notability qualify the article in question for deletion. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SamHolt6's argument may possibly justify the insertion of the {{ third-party }} tag, however, I see no evidence that the article reads like an advertisement, nor that the subject of the article is entirely non-notable. I have just added an additional independent source and piece of information which assists in showing notability, in addition to cleaning up and improving the article altogether. Also worth noting: A Google search reveals HORDES of other sites (including some high-profile ones) linking to this site. It has certainly gained some significant recognition. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 00:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nom is absolutely correct on this one, and although the article itself doesn't read like an advertisement, all of the sources really are. I did a search in books and in Google, and although Steevven1 is correct -- there are a lot of hits -- they're all either written by the company itself or are just automated items that were created by them. Does not meet the criteria at WP:RS. Nomader (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references in the article provide any significant coverage of this website in independent, reliable sources. This debate has been going on for three weeks and nothing that shows notability has come to light. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article content is promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I understand that this had been relisted 3 times, (and depending on which en.wiki cult you are initated in that is 1-3 relists to many :)) niether HazardBot nor the final relister addded the "Afd debates relisted 3 times or more" category, which is watched by a multitude of editors. If this can be relisted, or closure delayed a few days, we may be able to get some eyse on this for better consensus. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1970 Rugby League World Cup. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Rugby League World Cup group stage[edit]

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

this is just the same as the results of group stage which already appear in 1970 Rugby League World Cup + team line ups. Also nominating for identical reasons:

LibStar (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Only the World Cup Final appears to be directly transcluded.Fleets (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

they are identical to the full world cup article even verbatim match summmaries except team listings. It is not like the FIFA World Cup where there are several groups requiring separate group articles. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, was only referring to the Team listings. Please feel free to tweak the language used in the body text so that it does not offend.Fleets (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge with the main Rugby League World Cup articles. No need for a separate article with so few teams in the competition at the time. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: no need for an article on the group stage of the tournament when the tournament consists entirely of the group stage and one final match. Mattlore (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge Per Mattlore. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. no need to duplicate info. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 03:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dreem Records[edit]

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

Non-notable company. A minor record label of the late 50s/early 60s that (after its owners gave up and went on to other careers) was reformed by one of the founders as some unclear form of music licensing service. No significant coverage of either entity to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see the talk page discussion. In my estimation there is quite a bit of collector interest in this label, so it is a useful topic from an "specialized encyclopedia" standpoint. There's probably some articles in obscure record collecting rags that I'll never see in my lifetime. All the online sources I could find are listed on the talk page, except for numerous message board postings. Article was created to promote the "re-formed" online music licencing company, which is utterly non-notable by any viewpoint I can think of. For a record collector, there are merely two pieces of useful information in the current article. 1st is the name of the founders (probably verifiable by the Billboard article and the Galen Gart independent labels book (which I don't have handy at the moment)), and the recording and pressing locations, which probably fail WP:V. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only thing I could find about the label was this: [48], it says on this website they released one album for a reasonably notable band, the Berry Brothers (every other band or performer listed are very obscure), but just releasing non-notable album or single (sources vary) for a vaugely notable band in the late 50s doesn't give notability in my opinion. Also this looks very promotional. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 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. —SpacemanSpiff 23:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai Baldeep Singh[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Certainly no evidence, or even clear assertion, of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many google news results about different instances.^[1] passes GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=610&tbm=nws&q=bhai+baldeep+singh&oq=bhai+baldeep+singh&gs_l=psy-ab.3...12144.12144.0.13671.1.1.0.0.0.0.310.310.3-1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.svTlFm00cKs

ChunnaBhai, are you connected to the subject of the article? Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not connected to the subject of the article. ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for office will get news coverage, but we have decided not all candidates are notable. Subject does not pass notability guidelines.
Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just because some campaign coverage exists — campaign coverage always exists for all candidates in all elections, so every candidate would always clear GNG if that were all it took. Rather, to get a candidate into Wikipedia, what would need to be shown is that either (a) he already had enough preexisting notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article for some other reason anyway, or (b) the campaign coverage exploded significantly out of proportion to what most other candidates could show. But neither of those things is being demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 8 August 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolytic Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources given and I cannot find any additional. Sources listed in the article fail WP:CORPDEPTH, they are either press releases or unrelated to the company. shoy (reactions) 19:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've assessed the sources in the article and they are either press releases or news about the company being acquired – both not significant. My search also did not come up with any additional source that can be used here. Fails GNG and ORG. Lourdes 01:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COMPANY with no coverage outside of press releases. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Armand Vigier[edit]

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

Deleted on 28 April 2017, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alistair Vigier. Can't imagine he is suddenly so much more notable. Edwardx (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a marketing person for a small law firm. A listing in a local "30 under 30" article does not confer notability, and the coverage is of the "local boy makes good" variety. Consensus only a few months ago was to delete, and all that has changed is that his middle name was used to create a new article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another biography of the Investor Relations Manager at HART Legal. The article makes no claim to encyclopaedic notability and the coverage provided and found is local and mundane. No reason to overturn the April consensus to delete. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no credible claim or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 18:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete helping to create the first law firm franchise in Canada is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 4 August 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 as hoax per WP:G3 Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution To Society[edit]

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

Apparent hoax. Searches found nothing. Most of the article is rather implausible. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I tend to agree. I could not find even one source (web or news; unreliable or reliable) that could confirm the existence of this band. The article contents too are downright unacceptable (for example I just removed the sentence "... is a fuckin’ loser with no skills at all.") Why not speedy delete this as a hoax? Lourdes 01:33, 2 August 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. Rfreeman779 If you would like the article put into your userspace for potential future improvements, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Classic Hits[edit]

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

Really struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Tiny one-man company. Edwardx (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a couple of computers running a radio station using an over-the-air setup flirting with the Part 15 line (if this was in Brooklyn the FCC likely would've killed it as a pirate station). This is pretty much most radio stations today; doesn't meet WP:BROADCAST as it isn't licensed. Add in a WP:COATRACK complaint about the SoundExchange royalties system and you have a very wordy article for a generic Internet oldies station. Nate • (chatter) 06:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither online radio stations nor Part 15 operations get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just for existing — they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG. But that's not what the sourcing here is showing: except for one article in a radio trade magazine that's actually about Carolina Classic Hits, all of the content that's actually about CCH itself is referenced to primary sources rather than reliable ones, while all of the other properly reliable sources are supporting a WP:COATRACK essay about the general challenges of radio broadcasting in the 21st century while neither being about CCH nor even mentioning CCH at all. This is not what it takes to make something like this eligible for a Wikipedia article — the radio trade magazine is literally the only source here that counts for anything at all toward supporting notability, and one acceptable source doesn't count for enough by itself. Also, conflict of interest (what a shocking surprise) if you compare the creator's username to the owner's name in the article's infobox. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding the "flirting with the Part 15 line (if this was in Brooklyn the FCC likely would've killed it as a pirate station)," the station is fully compliant with the FCC's regulations and restrictions for Part 15 broadcasting. Under no circumstances, would we engage in or condone any illegal or 'pirate' operations. "Regarding the "complaint about the SoundExchange royalties system," this is simply an example of the methodology and if there is a better way to convey this information, please advise me or edit the article. This information conveyed here is in answer to the questions asked by other Internet radio broadcasters and individuals who desire to start their own station in the future. There is not an abundance of sources regarding CCH because the station is part of an industry that is just beginning to become a source of mainstream listening. CCH also serves a niche audience in that it is an older demographic than the 12-24 demographic which currently listens to Internet radio the most. These numbers are broadening as the reach of Internet radio broadens and includes in-car listening apps which are already available in some vehicles. Small (one-man) operations, especially in this form of broadcasting, are becoming more prevalent as the expense to operate a station is very low and the interest in starting a radio station by both veteran broadcasters and those new to medium with a unique form of programming to share. The fact that any operation is small has no bearing on the interest that others may have in the operation or the contribution that makes regarding entertainment and/or the conveying of information. I am totally open to any suggested editing of the article and please note that CCH is not a commercial operation or business. Advertising proceeds goes directly to licensing and the cost of streaming is paid out of pocket by CCH; we have no revenue and we have minimal expenses. CCH refers other broadcasters, potential broadcast programmers and listeners to Wikipedia to get their questions answered through this article and any supporting articles that are referenced. I have made some edits to the article as of August 6, 2017 and I welcome any further suggestions. Thank you. Rick 04:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Rfreeman779 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Part 15 stations are not accorded an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NMEDIA's rules for the notability of radio stations. If a station does not have a full-fledged FCC license, then the only way it can still qualify for a Wikipedia article is if it has enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. If that's not present and can't be provided, then the station simply does not get to have a Wikipedia article at all — the facts that it's "part of an industry that is just beginning to become a source of mainstream listening", or that it "serves a niche audience", do not grant it an exemption from having to be properly sourced. Reliable source coverage is the notability test, and a thing that doesn't have that doesn't get to put itself into Wikipedia just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, and Bearcat's summation. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and it doesn't pass WP:NMEDIA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avromie Summers[edit]

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardx (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I would request Edwardx to comment on the reasons for nomination, my initial research suggests the subject doesn't catch up on either GNG or CREATIVE or MUSICBIO. Unless something terribly important comes up to the contrary, this seems a Delete. Lourdes 16:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as businessman or a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oops, don't know why it didn't save my reasoning for this AfD nom. Think it was the lack of any independent in-depth coverage. Edwardx (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:44, 11 August 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] "Posh Secure Signing Of Highly-Rated Kanu". Peterborough F.C. 1 August 2017. Retrieved 1 August 2017.

[2] HOFMANN, U., G. GRAFNER, and W. TSCHERNER. "EPIZOOTIOLOGY, CLINICAL COURSE, AND DIAGNOSIS OF ACANTHOCEPHALOSIS (FILICOLLOSIS) IN COMMON DUCK." MONATSHEFTE FUR VETERINARMEDIZIN 44.16 (1989): 576-578.

[3] ttps://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=610&tbm=nws&q=bhai+baldeep+singh&oq=bhai+baldeep+singh&gs_l=psy-ab.3...12144.12144.0.13671.1.1.0.0.0.0.310.310.3-1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.svTlFm00cKs

[1]

[2]

[1]