Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 August 28 August >

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rasel Catering Singapore[edit]

Rasel Catering Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is blatantly promotional, no significant secondary coverage, fails WP:NORG Rogermx (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete blatant advert created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 28 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) 19:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Lieber[edit]

Kaitlyn Lieber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability requirements for actors. Page author removed proposed deletion template with no improvement or rationale. CJK09 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. An unsourced claim of two episodes of a TV series that didn't get renewed is not notable. I can't find anything else for her. Note that there is a bit of info for a Katelyn Lieber who appears to be a different person.
  • Delete. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 07:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pranati Rai Prakash[edit]

Pranati Rai Prakash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi. The subject is not notable. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am looking at the references given on the article, and it seems that the subject meets WP:GNG. There are two articles listed in the references section- specifically, the ones from India Today (1) and The Indian Express (3) that look to me like reliable sources giving substantial coverage independent of the subject. The websites do look reliable to me, however I suggest that someone more experienced double check. I do not see any obvious WP:NOT violations. I will admit that this article has syntax issues (for example, the aforementioned India Today article has been listed again in (4) in the references section). I will fix what I know how to fix, but overall, I do not see any notability issues. 24.47.109.192 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@24.47.109.192: There is no coverage over the medium or long term (sources over 2 years minimum). --Panam2014 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the closer of this discussion, this thread continued on my talk page. --24.47.109.192 (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - winner of a notable reality TV series Spiderone 10:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:26, 27 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. There's near universal agreement that this team doesn't exist (and thus fails WP:V). The only question is whether failing WP:V prohibits creating a redirect, and opinion is pretty much split down the middle on that. WP:V is a bright-line requirement, so I'm going with delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti women's national under-23 football team[edit]

Haiti women's national under-23 football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I hesitate to call it a hoax, but there does not appear to be a Haiti Women's U-23 football team. Content appears to be made up (duplicate of other age group and men's equivalent) without evidence. Olympic women's football is not age restricted and is therefore contested by the full senior side, which already has an article. References do not support article in that none of them mention U-23. ClubOranjeT 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Unless references are added for U-23, redirect to Haiti women's national football team. Hmlarson (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haiti women's national football team. It's also WP:TOOSOON; no one in Haiti even thought of an U-23 team yet. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haiti women's national football team. I don't think it's a hoax, but rather a mistake that someone who thought the Olympics team for women is age-restricted, as the men's is - all the references on the page talk about the Hawaii women's Olympic football team. As the women's competition isn't age-restricted and the senior team competes in it, this should be redirected and anything missing in the senior team article merged from it, so as to prevent future innocent mistakes such as this. --SuperJew (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I don't like the idea of a redirect as this, to me, could imply that such a team does exist, but is without an article. Jellyman (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect implies that the team exists, but there isn't any evidence that it does. Number 57 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The only U-23 women's competition I know about was the Nordic Cup in 2007, 2008 & 2009 [1] and Haiti U23 didn't participate. Maiō T. (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Appreciate that the team does not exist, but think it is better that the lead for the national team clarifies that the senior national team represents the country in the Olympics rather than a straightforward delete which will undoubtedly cause someone to recreate at a later date. Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Redirect - seems to me that the redirect !votes above have more rational, but I would not be opposed to a delete if no sources can be found. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. The women's Olympic competition has no age restrictions, so it's likely this team doesn't exist, but it's possible a confused reader might not know that and they should be directed to where they can find the info. Evidently the author was one such person. Smartyllama (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mainly to decide between 'redirect' and 'delete'.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that a Haiti U23 team exists. – PeeJay 17:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to provide more thorough discussion and clearer consensus to decide between delete and redirect, because as nominator, having been proactive on a discussion elsewhere and brought the article here to its proper place for discussion, I had not considered or addressed that option. The subject of this article has never existed, therefore fails WP:V and is unlikely search term in its entirety. We don't have redirects from the 180 odd other countries that have never had a women's u-23 side, nor do we have articles or redirects for country-xxx women's U21 national football team or any of a thousand variations of other teams that never existed. Clarifying my nominating statement I concur with SuperJew that it wasn't likely created as a deliberate hoax, but rather by an over enthusiastic editor who rapidly created a series of Haiti football articles without doing due diligence. I therefore don't see how deleting the article would make it any more likely that someone would recreate it as anyone creating an article is supposed to ensure there are reliable references that show the subject to be notable. Those who circumvent that are just as likely to repurpose a redirect. I agree with Jellyman and Number57 a redirect might imply to some the subject exists but doesn't have an article yet. The suggestion by Fenix Down that the lead for the senior team should mention they contest the Olympics is sensible and has been done, but does not justify the need for a redirect. A search for Haiti women Olympic football should now present the senior women's article and be less likely to imply a different team contests it. For these reasons I suggest it be deleted. ClubOranjeT 11:47, 29 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. Sufficient consensus; no need for relist #4. (non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 18:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanToronto[edit]

UrbanToronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I love this blog myself as I'm fascinated about what's happening in Toronto but from what I can tell from my websearch, it fails GNG. This odd addition that "Wikipedian Simon Pulsifer is a member of UrbanToronto," both here and in Simon's bio article, strikes me as an attempt to somehow confer notability -- when in fact anyone can join their discussions. If there's significant independent coverage out there in reliable sources that I've missed, please let me know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I do see that it rates a nice passing mention in The Globe and Mail where the architecture writer calls it "one of my go-to sites for all things development" in Toronto -- that's good. But we'd need much more than that, useful as the site is for that author as well as laymen like me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shawn in Montreal: I respectfully request that you withdraw this request and revisit later. The article was literally created yesterday, and I am still working on its development. Some items have been added that may be trivial, and they may have been added by anonymous users who may not be as familiar with Wikipedia policies. Just give it a chance to develop and establish notability, and then we can revisit whether it should be deleted or not later. I would greatly appreciate some extra time, I do not have a large amount of time IRL to dedicate to expansion this weekend. --Natural RX 14:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These AFDs are typically open for a minimum of seven days and you'll have plenty of time to improve it after what I realize is a holiday weekend in Ontario. In the meantime, if others can find reliable sources I'll happily withdraw as I too like this site. And sources don't have to be on the article. If anyone can simply demonstrate that it meets GNG -- or WP:WEBCRIT -- that would be fine. So no, I'm sorry, but I'd rather not withdraw what I still believe to be a valid Afd for a non-notable subject. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Please give it some time. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. While there's certainly notability potential here, it isn't actually demonstrated by this article as written or sourced — and if you need time to get it up to snuff, then the place to do that is in the draft or user sandbox spaces, not in mainspace. And I'm a reader of it, too, so it's not a question of personally lacking familiarity with the topic. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Keep per NaturalRX's improvements. Nice job. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe I have added enough content to establish the site's notability in the realm of urban development in Toronto, in accordance with WP:WEB. Furthermore, a Google search will make it apparent that Urban Toronto articles are featured on many other third-party sites; pages of significant developers such as Great Gulf and IBI Group are examples. --Natural RX 20:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to cement consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:23, 27 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. North America1000 01:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Cultural Centre Vancouver[edit]

Italian Cultural Centre Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. It exists and I'm sure it does good work, but doesn't have the coverage. Has been tagged for notability for 9 years now, hopefully we can get the issue resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sure it's frustrating but using AfD to bump inherently notable articles into getting better sourcing isn't the purpose of AfD is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
why is it inherently notable? LibStar (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, In ictu oculi, I'm not sure what to make of that. It makes assumptions that are simply untrue about my reasons for nominating - please stick to commenting on the notability of the article. Boleyn (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading "It exists and I'm sure it does good work, but doesn't have the coverage. Has been tagged for notability for 9 years now, hopefully we can get the issue resolved." maybe I misread "doesn't have the coverage", since when I clicked on sources the coverage was too plentiful if anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in my nomination says my plan is 'to bump inherently notablr articles into getting better sourcing' by taking them to AfD. I don't thin it's notable, I respect your right to disagree, but please don't just make unsubstantiated attacks. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:ORG . No inherent notability . Gnews shows routine announcements such as holding events or local coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: and GBooks? none of these book sources?. What about p.74 of Nationalism from the Margins: Italians in Alberta and British Columbia By Patricia K. Wood? To me p.74 on its own would provide notability for this building and association. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
most of the gbooks mentions are 1 line mentions. The Wood book you mention is a one paragraph mention . WP:SIGCOV requires detailed coverage. I stand by my delete !vote. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ummm, I was going to talk about WP:SIGCOV, but I note that the point is taken, BTW, I have added the references to the article. Replying to the point raised by LibStar, there are no absolute thresholds for coverage. If multiple, independent and reliable sources mention the subject of the article, even then the subject is notable, and yes, the subject is covered in multiple books available on Google Books. Maybe, the content available via reliable sources is not sufficient to make this an A Class article, but that is OK. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are going to stay as stubs for a long time. But, coming back to the main point, the subject of the article has received significant independent coverage to be Notable. --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has not demonstrated encyclopedic notability, with sourcing that is very weak and largely either local in nature or not independent of the subject. But of more basic concern, I'm having a tough time even seeing a credible claim of significance. What are we told about the Centre in the introduction? We are told that it exists, it has an address and it has a bar. And some writers once met there. And it has a sculpture by the gate. If these are truly the most significant things that can be said, then this organization has no encyclopedic notability. And so, I think 'delete' is the best option here. Conceivably, one could redirect it to Little Italy, Vancouver, but that article doesn't mention the Centre at all and I don't see how the material here could be merged into that article without creating an undue-weight problem. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:21, 27 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. A move can be proposed. (non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 18:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triacontatetragon[edit]

Triacontatetragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search shows that this fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being constructible is an unusual property but not enough to provide independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There seems to be at least a little mention of this, here, for example. And if not a keep, maybe at least merge into a new section at heptadecagon since it's fairly closely related. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a simple topic, 34-sided polygon. Basic math facts about it are presented, without sources which is okay because the facts are not contested, are probably 100% okay. If someone wants to contest the facts, that can be done by tagging challenging for sources. Wikipedia is a reference source; this covers a basic encyclopedic topic. --doncram 18:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – a GS and Google Books search for "34-gon" turns up a smattering of results (I noticed [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]), so the topic seems worth discussing somewhere, maybe in a section at heptadecagon. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep a merge would be ideal, but I don't see a good target. Keep is the next-best option. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The original stub had lots of formatting issues and trivia. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't it be "triacontakaitetragon"? The "kai" is missing. Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's cool that it's constructable. Somewhat more seriously, there's enough in the article that merging it (and others like it) into something like list of polygons would be unwieldy. And, even more seriously, this is math. We need more math (and less crap about porn stars, pokémon, and pop culture). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only keep !vote cited the guideline out of context and was not able to demonstrate significant roles nor coverage. SoWhy 14:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remya Panickar[edit]

Remya Panickar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Not enough in-depth sources to show she passes WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NACTOR Onel5969 TT me 23:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one depends on the interpretation of WP:NACTOR. She is listed in the cast of a number of significant films, but typically somewhere down the cast list, not starring roles. So, where is the cutoff for 'significant role'? I'm a bit confused that she is listed as a 'heroine' for the film Happy Wedding, but the wiki page on the film doesn't mention her. Neither does the IMDB page. She would still be notable if she had a significant fan base or cult following, and I consider the large fan base to be plausible.The fan base may be evidenced by Malayam sources that I can't read. If she passes WP:NACTOR for this reason, could someone please add information on this to the article? I don't wish to vote delete out of ignorance, so put this forward as a comment. Ross-c (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable actress who has acted in blink and you miss roles. The heroine of Happy Wedding was Drishya Raghunath, the female character with the most screentime was Anu Sithara and Delna Davis had a small but significant role as well. Most of the information in the article is unreferenced as well. I can also assure you that she has no cult following in Kerala, and I would be surprised if anybody even recognises her as an actress. Jupitus Smart 10:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 19:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Among the 3 criteria's of The WP:NACTOR policy, one criteria says an "actor is considered as notable If they have acted in multiple notable films" as per this revision [7] under filmography section, the actress is credited for four films. The four films in which the actor had acted have a standalone article of their own it , this means the actor have acted in multiple notable films thus they pass WP:NACTOR. Anoptimistix (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actually, agf you mistakenly quoted the policy, which actually reads: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" (emphasis mine). Which certainly doesn't apply in this case.Onel5969 TT me 14:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XEN-SHELL2[edit]

XEN-SHELL2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a Xen Management Console that fails WP:NSOFT because is not discussed in independent, reliable sources as significant in its particular field, widely used in education, or otherwise historically significant. The author appears to have COI. Mduvekot (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article doesn't suggest why it passes software notability standards. I'd also recommend that the creator be warned about conflict of interest editing and encouraged to declare. DrStrauss talk 11:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have left a message on Dettenbach's talk page about COI, paid editing, notability, etc. I'm not going to !vote either way because the article subject is too far outside my areas of expertise for me to judge. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: I just noticed that Dettenbach left a long comment here arguing to keep the article. I can't make heads or tails of it myself, but it should probably be taken into account by other !voters and/or the closing admin; there are sources cited, even if some of them look not to be independent. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see below the creator of the article's argument, copied from the talk page of this AfD:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allow time for comments on page creator's comments from talk page, now copied onto this page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From my own searching, I don't see the kind of WP:RS we need to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / speedy delete -- A7 / G11 material all cited to itself. Wikipedia is not a product brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:08, 28 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 Jana Kolarič. Since the redirect has already been implemented, a merge can be carried out from the article history. (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Izpred kongresa[edit]

Izpred kongresa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very short without claim of notability, and the author does not have a WP page. If someone is interested in this topic/author, the best option would be to make an article for the author. But currently, I do not see how this improves wikipedia ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Jana Kolarič. If there's not enough info about the book the author seems notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator has not described research that shows the subject is not notable. The author is notable, e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11] and the book also seems notable, e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I would support a merge to the article on the author+books, but until that article has been started we should keep this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author being notable is irrelevant as to whether one of their books notable enough for its own article. The links you posted about the book, two of them are the book for sale, one of them is a blog post.. I don't know if any of those are reliable sources, do you? Or did you just google it and list results? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: None of those sources discuss the book in detail, apart from a brief mention. The articles appear to be about the author or other topics, and on none does the title of the book get mentioned more than twice. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just googled "Izpred kongresa" Kolarič and listed some of the first 30 results. There are many more. I do not known enough about Slovenia to evaluate the sources, but based on number of different websites and length of text, the author is notable and the book probably is. The Slovenian Wikipedia has articles on Jana Kolarič and Izpred kongresa, which also suggests notability. I would be fine with a combined article, redirecting the book title to the article on the author+books, but first that article has to be started. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really curious about how can a Slovene Wikipedia article, written by a single person with evident promotional interest, be considered evidence of notability... --Eleassar my talk 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a non-English Wikipedia has an article on a subject, in my experience it is usually notable. Certainly that is the case with Jana Kolarič. Not so sure about the book. Obviously the search results are more relevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable book by a non-notable author. This may seem biased, but what notable recognition has she or the book actually won? I really don't get this Wikipedia anymore: people have redirected Lek (pharmaceutical company) to another article, though the company was a major employer and a national pride at a time, but would like to keep the article on an obscure work by an obscure author. All that I see is that someone tried really hard to make her biography seem notable in the Slovene Wikipedia.[17] --Eleassar my talk 23:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleassar: You're wrong about the author not being notabl...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge into the new article on Jana Kolarič. The article on the book is short. It could be more useful to readers to redirect them to the article on the author, which contains information on the book. The redirect could always be turned back into a regular article if the book becomes more notable, for example if it is turned into a hit movie. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three of the !votes say "Keep or merge". Which one? Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 19:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a clear and unambiguous consensus to me. Either keep it or merge it, depending. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt this author is notable, and her book even more so. The arbitrary statement 'Eleassar, the author is notable' does not convince me. Any sources and well-founded arguments to confirm her notability? The links provided above are not: they contain numerous articles on writers, both notable and non-notable. --Eleassar my talk 00:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar: You could nominate Jana Kolarič for deletion, but you would be wasting everyone's time. The article cites several sources that discuss the subject in some depth, and many more could be cited. She is one of the better-known living Slovenian authors. The question is whether we keep the article about the book, or find a volunteer to merge its content into the article on the author. The default if nobody cares to merge is to keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More arbitrary statements... "Special mention by a jury' does not make her notable; neither does a single play on a radio. Anyway, it may be that I'm mistaken, that she really is notable and has somehow only stayed out of my consciousness. I'll ask another Slovenian user about this. --Eleassar my talk 11:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar: The general notability guidelines apply to anything from a ping-pong player to a hat. A subject is notable if it has been discussed in some depth by independent sources. It does not have to be "special" in some way. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia. The guidelines just weed out topics nobody is interested in. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again.
First, you don't have to ping me all the time: I keep this page on my watchlist and find this rather annoying.
Second. there are other criteria besides 'discussed in some depth by independent sources'. For biographies, they're listed at WP:BIO. In particular:
  1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
  3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.
I don't think she meets and of these.
As to the book, a book is notable if "it has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."
Among the links cited above, there is no such link; the first is a bookshoper's description, while the second and the third do not discuss the book in any detail. --Eleassar my talk 12:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guidelines apply to all articles. If a subject meets those criteria, it is notable and the article should be kept. Project-specific guidelines give criteria that can justify keeping an article that does not meet the general guidelines. A subject may be relevant to several projects, each with different guidelines. It can fail all the project-specific guidelines and still be notable if it has attracted attention from independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the article does not meet these criteria, it should in general not be kept without significant evidence of notability. It has been presented neither for the book nor for the person. --Eleassar my talk 14:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Jana Kolarič is based entirely on a sample of independent sources available online (mostly ones that showed up on Google Images). It is hard to see how an article this long could be based on no more than passing mentions of the subject. It would be frivolous to nominate it for deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll say let's keep the article on the author and redirect this page there. The sources on the book listed above don't provide the required independent material for its proper article. --Eleassar my talk 16:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can do the merge. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dr. Blofeld, who started the article, jumped the gun by changing it into a redirect to Jana Kolarič, but everyone agrees that is what should be done. I say, just close this discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:51, 27 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Tanimu Turaki[edit]

Kabir Tanimu Turaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatantly advertorialized biography of a politician, who has a potentially valid claim of notability but is failing to reliably source it. Right across the board, the referencing here is to primary sources, dead links and a user-generated citizen journalism blog, not to reliable source coverage about him in real media. And the article creator also presented a false impression of the subject's notability by templating him and categorizing him as a former member of the Nigerian Senate and a former state governor, even though neither the article body nor any of the sources even suggest that he ever held either office — he was a non-winning candidate for state governor, and the only "senate" office he's claimed to have held is not in a legislature but in the organizational senate of a student union. And given that the article contained easily detected lies, even the notability claim he does have is suspect if it can't be properly sourced. In truth, I would ordinarily have speedied this under criterion G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion, but this is a followup recreation after a virtually identical version was speedied G11 one week earlier. So no prejudice against recreation if it can be written neutrally and sourced properly, but in this form it requires the blow it up and start over treatment. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt blantantly promotional article with primary/unreliable sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with nominator and other !voters that the present state of this article is not what Wikipedia should represent but the subject is notable and passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. He was a federal minister and quite instrumental during the 2015 Boko Haram insurgency. You will find sources if you search for Kabiru Turaki. I will not recommend salting the article. I might decide to recreate in the future. Darreg (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, that's why I alluded to our blow it up and start over principle — there are times when the article is so bad that we're better off deleting the article that exists and allowing somebody with a better sense of how to write and source a Wikipedia article to start over than we are just trying to repair the current version. And even salt wouldn't prevent a responsible editor from writing a new article in sandbox or draftspace and then having it moved overtop the redlink when it was done — what it would do is prevent this mess from coming back in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 29 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. Given that the article has been expanded to include the entire site, as opposed to simply the podcast, another AfD would need to be started here. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Futility Closet Podcast[edit]

Futility Closet Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable podcast lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are generally short references to site or lists of podcasts. reddogsix (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion -References may be brief, but there are enough of them, and from sufficiently prominent sources, to put the subject over the notability threshold, I would argue. At least it should be enough for a start. LANTZYTALK 18:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion The Futilily Closet blog is (and always has been) frequently cited on other Wikipedia pages. It is well known in the recreational mathematics community. It has sometimes been the first site to present original results in puzzle and recreational mathematics literature. Futility closet has been a conduit for results by John H. Conway, Richard K. Guy, Solomon W. Golomb, and many other well-known mathematicians when they dabbled in recreational math.[1] An article about the blog and/or the podcast is long overdue.--Toploftical (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure this AfD still applies, as the article is now about Futility Closet as a whole after being moved as a redirect. @Reddogsix: do you want this AfD to be about deleting the main article, or should this be closed as 'already solved' given the changes? Mortee (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T. V. Thomas[edit]

T. V. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person is claimed to be a MLA but there are little references which point to that. Much information available here is un-referenced and little more info has been added in the last few years Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:48, 27 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) feminist 07:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathai Manjooran[edit]

Mathai Manjooran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person is claimed to be a Member of Parliament but little references are available. The article has also not been expanded/more references added in the last 4 years. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Searches show various traces of the subject's life and work, for example passing mention of organising a protest [18] [19], and commemorated through memorial lectures [20] and a street name [21]. See also the Google Books link, though the most useful appear to be in snippet form. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:38, 27 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) 09:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Milkshake![edit]

List of programmes broadcast by Milkshake! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable list, These were removed from the Milkshake! article due to being unsourced however various socks have added it back and now one sock(?) has created a whole new article, Anyway fails NOTTVGUIDE (IMHO) and GNG –Davey2010Talk 17:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR... Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salted redirect to Channel 5 (UK) programming#Children and teenagers Should never have been created in the first place; it's a programming block, and we don't do 'list of' articles on programming blocks airing over a channel space. At least on the main Channel 5 article we have plenty more eyes on it (though I readily admit that article's kid's section needs sourcing help in itself). Nate • (chatter) 07:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Logosncompanies: has claimed on the talk page of this nom (wrong place to post that) there are sources now. There are not; the 'sources' are just the Milkshake home page and their program page about Pingu. As WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs they are wholly disqualified. Please address this, LNC. Nate • (chatter) 18:52, 28 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.  Sandstein  07:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oil boom and bust cycles[edit]

Oil boom and bust cycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am actually copying the initial PROD rationale by [[User:Rhadow ]], which author of the article continues to delete and I don't want to engage in edit warring. "Notability. There are no other occurrences of "Rasizade's algorithm" on the web, that I could find. I have a suspicion that algorithm is an imperfect translation of the original language of this paper; that's why I cannot find it. This is a fine piece of writing, well referenced, and probably got its author an A. Nonetheless, it constitutes original research. Either that, or its plagiarized from its original author. In either case, that's disqualifying. Most of the references are printed books. That's not disqualifying; I just don't have access. The others are all on the other side of a paywall though." Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed the concerns expressed in the deletion request in several ways: 1) Renamed (moved) the article. The new title more accurately reflects the essence of the article; 2) It describes a fundamental economic model and is a compendium of all scholarly work published in the field of rentier states; 3) This is not and cannot be a research article, as a scholarly research looks absolutely different, but an encyclopedic summary of all scholarship done in this field by leading researchers. It is enough to take a look at similar Wikipedia articles in the field of economic models and compare with mine; 4) I have re-edited the article accordingly to comply with the new title; 5) If the nominator suspects me of plagiarism, he has to prove it with citations. = Bilgeis (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an article about a single research paper that doesn't demonstrate the widespread impact of the research sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As to whether we should have an article on Oil boom and bust cycles, I believe Price of oil covers the topic already. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Price of oil, being just a technical description of commodity trends, has nothing to do with macroeconomic impact of oil booms and busts on rentier states, as well as the Dutch disease model has nothing to do with the Price of oil and therefore stands alone. My contribution is a continuation of the latter, as is clearly indicated in the text. As for the single research paper, the article provides references to multiple sources, where this model has been described, being a summary of all the mentioned scholarship. = Bilgeis (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Delete but make use of sources It's good stuff, but it's the wrong kind of good stuff: an essay with a focus on a specific model. As noted above, Price of oil exemplifies a suitable encyclopedic take on the wider topic. I would suggest that the author incorporate some of the useful information and sources into that article. E.g., it seems to me (completely not my area tho) that Price of oil might very well do with a dedicated "Modelling" subsection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it good stuff? Some of the sources listed at the end may be worthy, but "merge" means merging some text. The text here is a misleadingly referenced WP:OR essay. Take the second paragraph in the "Descending cycle of oil bust" section for example. The entire paragraph is referenced to a paper about the financial crisis that doesn't even mention the argument put forward in the paragraph.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the paragraphs are by turns too specific and too general; I think the material is good but the handling is poor (basically what makes the current article unsuitable). I didn't mean to imply that current text should be ported over, and you are right that it's not a "merge". Amended. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing to a mishap, in order to improve the article (which is the stated goal of Wikipedia), I have replaced the reference in the mentioned paragraph. = Bilgeis (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not publish original research such as this. If the title were redirected, I would suggest to Energy policy. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. As said by the users, article is a notable stub which requires expansion so I am keeping it. @Spinningspark: you showed interest in the expansion and improvement of this article please go ahead (non-admin closure) Anoptimistix "Message Me" 04:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAIV[edit]

SAIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDICT as well as WP:V due to a lack of reliable sourcing. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and is mentioned in many more. SpinningSpark 22:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current woeful state of the article notwithstanding, this topic is the subject of significant scholarly research. In addition to Spinningspark's sources, a Google Scholar search and JSTOR search both show that there is notability under our guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Under G11/G12 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Ranjan[edit]

Sumit Ranjan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SCHOLAR and WP:GNG, per my review of sources. Lourdes 15:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This article is created by a user named Webgax and the content is almost exactly same as this page which has a domain mane same as the username. There is also a high likeliness of promotion here. It's been CSD'ed 12 hours ago but the user recreated it. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. 🖉← 18:55, 27 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) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cognizance (festival)[edit]

Cognizance (festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article on festival in single university DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:28, 27 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) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Yarchun[edit]

Deborah Yarchun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant discussion of the individual in reliable sources. Google search results in mainly event notifications and passing mentions. Contested prod.... discospinster talk 02:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as non-notable. Google search turned up slim pickings. Quis separabit? 03:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does "contested prod" in discopsinster's comment mean? The subject is discussed in several major newspapers. 19:15, 29 August 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.227.17 (talk)

  • "Contested prod" means that a proposed deletion tag was put up, and then someone removed it. That means the next step would be to have a deletion discussion (i.e. what we are doing here). I see many sources where she is mentioned, but not many where she herself is the subject of the article in a major newspaper. ... discospinster talk 20:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Is the question about the references listed here or about what's out there on the Internet? If the latter I see reviews in the New York Times and Backstage.com, a feature in the Star Tribune (10th largest Sunday newspaper in the U.S.), plus lots of smaller stuff. Wikipedia entries on playwrights are hugely inconsistent on references - what is wanted to show "Relevance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.227.17 (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this case, the specific applicable guideline for notability would be WP:CREATIVE, but you are quite right about the inconsistencies in referencing. menaechmi (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claim of notability is basicsally that she authored "the fastest-selling show in the 2017 Minnesota Fringe Festival". Agricola44 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being the "fastest selling" production at a festival with "fringe" in its name is basically shouting louad and clear "this persons work is not notable."John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet the WP:GNG requirement.Onel5969 TT me 18:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dukula De Alwis Jayasinghe[edit]

Dukula De Alwis Jayasinghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Has only participated in school productions and competitions - fails WP:NACTOR. Dan arndt (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  14:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now not proved the notability through reliable sources. Bisharch (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent vanity page for high school student. No indication of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pornography in Asia#Saudi Arabia. Alex ShihTalk 05:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography in Saudi Arabia[edit]

Pornography in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is some notability of the topic, but in current version of the article it does not add any significant information to Pornography_in_Asia#Saudi_Arabia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  14:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep: @John from Idegon, 331dot, and Theroadislong:, when the articles was listed here for deletion discussion, I, the creator of this article, had made only one edit to this article. All users develop articles in several edits, the article was not ready. I have improved the article by adding relevant information cited to sources, I shall continue to improve and request all of you to do so. There are also other articles about pornography in countries at "Category:Pornography by country". It easily meets WP:GNG, Please review your comments, do not disheart me. Thanks! Sinner (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest in future you use the WP:AFC method of creating articles, they are less likely to be deleted, this article is VERY poorly written and sourced and is not required. Theroadislong (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There is already a page listing the stance on pornography on a country-by-country basis, so it might as well be put there to keep the encyclopedia tidy. I don't see this becoming a full-blown article, but more of an informational snippet. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 16:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let the discussion to go to Hell, I'm moving the article to draft space for development. Sinner (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nazim Hussain Pak, you can only do that if there is a consensus here to do that. You need to read WP:OWN. You should have started the article in draft space. But you didn't. Others have edited it. It is not yours to do with what you want. As soon as you press the save button, everything you add to Wikipedia ceases to be yours to do with what you wish and becomes the sole property of Wikipedia; subject to community consensus, which is what this discussion is here to determine. John from Idegon (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)John from Idegon (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted move to draft space and removal of AfD tag. Oppose draftifying this article in its present form.John from Idegon (talk) 01:47, 29 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. The strongest, policy based arguments are for deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Hynes White[edit]

Percy Hynes White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a teen actor, not based on enough reliable source coverage about him to clear notability requirements for actors. The referencing here consists of one news article which is primarily about a film he was in, supporting the notability of the film more than his standalone notability as a performer, and one Q&A interview with him on the website of the film festival that same film premiered at (which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source at all.) As always, actors are not granted an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist -- but the sourcing, and the substance of what there is to say about him besides "he exists as an actor", just aren't where they need to be to deem him as passing WP:NACTOR yet. And furthermore, due to the potential of a Wikipedia article to cause harm (e.g. vandalism or attack editing), we have a standing practice of being especially careful about the notability of minors. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he's more sourceable as passing NACTOR for more than just one role, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No criterion in WP:NACTOR can be passed just by asserting that he satisfies an NACTOR criterion — an actor gets past NACTOR by having a reasonable degree of reliable source coverage about him to support an article with, not by just claiming to meet an NACTOR criterion. For being in Murdoch Mysteries to count toward notability, you have to show media coverage about his performance in Murdoch Mysteries; for being in Between to count toward notability, you have to show media coverage about his performance in Between; for being in The Gifted to count toward notability, you have to show media coverage about his performance in The Gifted; and on and so forth. And an article about the series which merely mentions his name in a comprehensive cast list (like what you've added for The Gifted) is not enough to demonstrate notability — he has to be substantively a subject of the source, not just have his existence namechecked in it, before the source counts for anything. Again: an actor is not automatically notable under NACTOR just he's had roles — he becomes notable only when media have singled him and his performances in those roles out for special dedicated attention.
And NACTOR requires more than just one role — so if you're going for "notable because he's been in stuff", rather than "notable because he won or got nominated for a Canadian Screen Award for it", then one article about Cast No Shadow is not enough coverage to carry an NACTOR pass all by itself either.
Bottom line, he needs to be the subject of more media coverage about him than this before he gets a Wikipedia article for any of it. And by the way, please read and familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well — the fact that Flynn Morrison doesn't have a stronger notability claim or better sourcing than this doesn't mean this needs to be kept, but that Flynn Morrison also needs to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added one more source to the film Edge of Winter. Frank Scheck stated his play as "excellent" (another leading role, I forgot to mention). -- MovieFex (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: WP:NEXIST -- MovieFex (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awards added -> Wikipedia:IDEALSTUB. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To count as a notability claim for an actor, an award has to be on the order of the Canadian Screen Awards, the Oscars, the Emmys or the BAFTAs — the primary national television or film awards — not "rising star" or "best actor" at a individual local film festival outside of the top tier of international prominence. At Cannes or Berlin or TIFF, sure, those would count. At Edmonton or Halifax or Sudbury or Frameline, no. Especially not if your reference for the award win is the award's own self-published website about itself, as the source you provided for Edmonton is — in order to be a notability-conferring award, it has to be an award that gets consistent and regular, and more than just local, coverage as news, like the Oscars or the Emmys or the CSAs and not like any film festival below the Cannes-Berlin-TIFF tier. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notability is a question of whether the necessary depth of sourcing exists, and not whether it's all already in the article or not. That's precisely why I nominated this for deletion: the necessary depth of sourcing doesn't exist, which I know because I ran sourcing checks. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The actor has had significant roles in two major television series, and is set to be a starring cast member in a third (The Gifted) later this year. There's just about enough reliable sources at the moment, although I agree that a few more would be ehlpgfful,. That said, it passes Nactor at the present time so should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindlevet (talk • contribs) 12:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nowhere near enough reliable sources at the moment — there's only one source present that's even marginally acceptable, and three that count for absolutely squat. And the does not pass NACTOR at the present time, either — again, passing NACTOR is not a question of the claim being made, but of the sources being presented to support the claim, and the sources here are not adequate. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you misinterpret NACTOR as you wish and mix it up with other criteria for relevance. The presence in some films might not be enough, but when NACTOR is fullfilled (... significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows ... etc) a clear notability is given. You forget the films as reliable sources and there is no explaination, why the film e.g. Cast No Shadow is notable but the actor who played the title role is not. Only one example. And what do you think, who is one of the actors shown on this cover of the upcoming TV series The Gifted? And THIS I call sabotage. You easily could have moved the reference to the right place. I don't know where you see your tasks here but as a sysop you have to help and support and not to misuse your extended rights in personal interest. -- MovieFex (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, no, the existence of the films does not count as metasourcing for their own notability — notability on Wikipedia is contingent on reliable source coverage about the topic in media, not simply on its existence technically metaverifying itself. And secondly, no, I'm not "intrpreting NACTOR as I wish and mixing it up with other criteria for relevance", either — Wikipedia is constantly inundated, in fact, with articles about actors whose creator erroneously interpreted the criterion as "any two roles, even non-speaking walk-on extra parts, in any two productions means an article has to exist whether it can be properly sourced or not". But they're wrong: the degree to which the article can be referenced to reliable source coverage about the actor is how we determine whether a role was "major" enough to count as a notability claim or not. And being pictured on the show's or film's self-published promotional poster is not a reliable source, either — a reliable source is a media outlet independent of the film producing its own content about the film, not any content produced by the production company's own marketing department. And finally, no, my role as an administrator on Wikipedia is not to simply help everybody do anything they want to — people regularly want to break Wikipedia's rules in any number of ways, and part of my role as an administrator is to tell those people why they can't. My job isn't to be a facilitator or a customer service representative — my responsibility is to Wikipedia, and sometimes includes removing or deleting content that doesn't comply with our rules or even blocking people's edit privileges entirely. If you want the article kept and want to add sourcing to improve its prospects, then it's your job to put the source where it belongs. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
During this discussion your part has more than 8000 bytes to get your will through. Instead you could have added one or two sentences to the article but no effort to help, only delete - delete - delete. Your argumentation is nonsense. We're not talking about "any two roles, even non-speaking walk-on extra parts, in any two productions". -- MovieFex (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that's what we were talking about here. But what we are talking about here is a person who has not been referenced to the degree of reliable source coverage needed to carry an NACTOR pass. The point of raising the person with only non-speaking extra walk-on roles was not to suggest that that's what Hynes-White is; it was to clarify the general reasons why we require reliable source coverage: anybody can simply claim absolutely anything about a person, so reliable sources are needed to show that the claim is true. The extent to which a role counts as "major" enough to satisfy NACTOR is defined by the extent to which that role has made him the subject of media coverage — a role does not count toward passing that criterion until you show that he has gotten reliable source coverage for that role. That's how notability works on here: it must always be supported by reliable source coverage about the person passing the criterion. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Case closed. tomburbine (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An actor does not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of having had roles — his eligibility for a Wikipedia article depends on his being the subject of reliable source media coverage about him and his performances in those roles. "Case closed" for an actor is "there are enough reliable sources present to support an article", not "there are roles listed in it". Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-- MovieFex (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"About": other Wikipedia articles are not sources. "Media coverage 1": counts for something, but not for enough all by itself as our notability standards require multiple reliable sources and not just one. Also, not new, but a source that was already discussed above. "Media coverage 2": just namechecks his existence a single time within an article which contains no substantive content about him, because it's about something else. You have a lot to learn about what constitutes valid sourcing and what doesn't, because you're not showing sources that count toward building notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Something about "About": It looks like, you have to learn a lot about WP:NEXIST. I gave a hint to an article, which has got more sources (I added a reference to this article, because of ... WP:NEXIST ... ?). Media coverage 3, everything in the article. --MovieFex (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merelyhaving his existence namechecked in a film review is also not a source that assists passage of GNG. He needs to be the subject of a source, not just have his name included in an article whose subject is something else, before that source contributes toward establishing notability. At any rate, I need no lessons in how Wikipedia works from you — I've been contributing here for about 15 years. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several people have presented sources. On the other hand, all those sources have been refuted for what appear to be solid policy-based reasons. On the third hand, they've all been refuted by a single editor, who nominated this for deletion. I'd really like to see some broader community input before closing this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as currently not sufficiently notable (role of "Boy" etc.). Anything notable could be placed in the article about his notable father until such time as he becomes sufficiently notable in his own right. Collect (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added interviews that White has done. He has starred in two films, has had multiple recurring roles in a mumber of television shows, and is a star in the Gifted tomburbine (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews don't assist notability either, because they represent the subject talking about himself and are thus subject to the same issues as self-published sources: he won't, for instance, get fact-checked if he makes an inaccurate claim about himself. To count toward WP:GNG, a source about him has to be written in the third person by somebody other than himself — a source in which he's talking about himself does not aid in building a GNG claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but his filmography currently doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)d[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryghteous Ryan Tedder[edit]

Ryghteous Ryan Tedder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a record producer, referenced solely to a single glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else. While there are claims here that would probably qualify him for an article if it were properly sourced, an article can claim nothing about its subject that would entitle him to an automatic inclusion freebie, exempted from having to be sourced, just because he exists. But I can't find anything like the required depth of sourcing on a Google News search -- even with "Ryghteous" as a search filter to steer Google away from the OneRepublic guy that the article tells us not to confuse this one with, all Google does is tell me there are no hits, "correct" the spelling of "ryghteous" to "righteous" and unquote the search term, and then send me bouncing right back to the OneRepublic guy. Although the one stray hit for Paul Ryan was cute. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thisisrnb.com is a blog, not a reliable source — and the post is a blurb, not a substantive article, and it just namechecks his existence a single time, rather than being about him. And as for Jennifer Lopez, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED — so he doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie just for working with a famous singer, if he isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage about him to carry an article. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Mos of the sources are little more than one-line album credits, which are not substantive enough for independent notability. The article and the argument to keep advanced on the talk page are attempts to claim WP:INHERITED notability from working with notable artists. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. "an independent source stating the subject exists is by definition, notability" is an exceptionally incorrect understanding our Wikipedia's notability policies, as pointed out by responders. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joyland (Beijing)[edit]

Joyland (Beijing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH by a wide margin. I found no significant coverage of this company in independent RSs. Rentier (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Chinese article is apparently unsourced too, so unless there is a Chinese-fluent editor around to search for sources it should probably be deleted. If for some reason it stays, it should be moved to Joyland (software developer).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB. using google translate will screw with some of the wording and make 'Beijing Happy World Technology Co. Ltd' appear as 'Happy World BES Co. Ltd some of the time. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aguyintobooks: The sources prove that the company exist, but what makes it notable? Nothing in the links you posted suggests to me that it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rentier: There are four good references here, an independent source stating the subject exists is by definition, notability. I will admit, the coverage is not substantial, however: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." since all these sources are exclusively written about said subject, they are not, by definition, trivial. therefore the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are satisfied. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aguyintobooks: "There are four good references here, an independent source stating the subject exists is by definition, notability." Not exactly. See also: WP:ITEXISTS. If you think that what is basically just WP:PROMO is one of the "good references" then it's probably not suitable for inclusion. A bunch of non significant references can't Voltron into a significant reference, some of them have to actually be significant in the first place.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here are some Chinese resources:
  1. SCE agreed to co-work with Joyland, Falcom's Kiseki series may publish on PS Chinese version
  2. Joyland get permission of Ao no Kiseki

This company has presented Chinese versions of Falcom's games, it meet the requires in WP:CORPDEPTH. --!Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND since they rely almost exclusively on company-produced announcements and/or material for facts and information. -- HighKing++ 15:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- just a directory listing; zero encyclopedically relevant prose. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 28 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. North America1000 01:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wynn (soldier)[edit]

Robert Wynn (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Robert Wynn was one of the NCOs in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; neither his rank (sergeant) or his highest award (bronze star) qualify him for notability under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, he went on with his life, garnering no significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wynn appears to pass the WP:GNG, with coverage in several reliable sources, so he doesn't need to also pass the subject-specific guideline for soldiers. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that the spate of books and articles about "Easy Company" has made a great number of its members WP:Notable. That might offend the sensibilities of some of the military history sorts, who love their top officers and their high medal winners but scorn "lesser" figures of social history, but them's breaks. Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A soldier does not become notable by being shot in the ass or by falling out of a boat during a river crossing. He does not become notable by the publication of books containing little more than anecdotes. Relating those anecdotes more than once doesn't make them more significant (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). There are more pages about non-notable enlisted men than non-notable officers being proposed for deletion because there are more non-notable enlisted men than non-notable officers because there are more enlisted men than officers. Wynn would never have had a page if he hadn't been in a rifle company that was the subject of a book and TV series (WP:INHERITED).--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So... because there are primary sources (the book and TV series) about him, the secondary sources about him don't count? That isn't how Wikipedia works. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Try again. That's not what I said.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- insufficient reliable sources for an NPOV biography. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER and notability is not inherited from the mini series. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed that he fails SOLDIER. I think with the book and other extenuating cultural cache surrounding Band of Brothers, he meets GNG. Expansion would be helpful, but I think that is possible given the material out there. South Nashua (talk) 14:35, 27 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) 21:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Lüddecke[edit]

Fritz Lüddecke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found link, just passing mentions. No de.wiki article exists. Did not hold a significant command and topped out as Oberfeldwebel. Successful completion of missions (sorties flown, # of enemy aircraft shot down, etc) is not part of SOLDIER.

Per the outcome of the discussion at WP:Notability (people): Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners, certain recipients were deemed non notable and SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists.

In this case, the redirect was contested on the grounds that the subject was a "notable ace". However, the "ace" status does not appear in notability guidelines. A related RfC that sought to add aces to the SOLDIER essay closed without reaching consensus for the change:

Due to lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail, I'm proposing either a "Delete" or a "Redirect to to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This a pilot with 51 aircraft kills. To put this number is context a Aviation regiment (Soviet Union) consisted of some 61-63 aircraft. So this pilot took out, by his own hands, almost a regiment sized force. Destroying a regiment clearly meets SOLDIER(4) - Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign. We routinely haves articles on aces with much lower kill counts: List of World War II flying aces, List of Korean War flying aces, List of Vietnam War flying aces. Receiving a "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross" might not confer notability in and of itself, but it does not confer non-notability (As a medal close to the highest-tier (in this case previously contested) it is not enough by itself, but it a supporting indication - just like the Navy Cross). Going out of WP:SOLDIER (which is an essay), we have WP:GNG, and in the case - +"Fritz Lüddecke" luftwaffe appears in approx. 22 (after scrolling down, raw hit count is 152 - 3 pages of results) in google books as may be seen here: google books search - page 3 of results (note there is a post-WWII German Dr. with the same name).Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you indicated two or three best sources that would help meet GNG? I'm seeing one line results such as in Aces of the Luftwaffe: only one mention in the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ones I see in google books are all short (however google books does not archive everything, and sometimes doesn't let you see contents at all). However the bibliography in the article cites a few more. The ones I see on google-books are: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Fellgiebel is searchable, but I think Obermaier, Patzwall & Scherzer, Scherzer are not.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are one line mentions; some merely state that the subject received the Knight's Cross on a particular date. Many trivial mentions don't equate to significant coverage that WP:N requires. Likewise, sources listed in the article are all catalogues of awards winners. Such sources have been specifically rejected during the Knight's Cross discussion that I linked in the nomination. They do not establish notability. For a related discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Henze, which closed as "Delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit that current reliable on-line sources are mainly brief (there is more info in non-reliable forums, memorabilia sales, etc.) - though some of them are more than 1-liners (e.g. paragraph and multiple one-liners in a few pages). However not all information is available online (and the articles cites some books which aren't). Henze is different in that he wasn't a fighter ace (or to be precise a deca-Ace - 10 times - with 51 kills) - while a recent RFC on ace notability closed with no-consensus - the bar there was 5 (ace) or maybe 10-15 kills. 51 kills is well above that - and is close to a whole Soviet air regiment.Icewhiz (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete A German "fighter ace" during WWII on the Eastern Front is not of the same kind as a "fighter ace" of another war or even a German "fighter ace" during WW II on the Western front. The kill rates claimed by Luftwaffe pilots over the Red Air Force of the Soviet Union were extraordinary. The Luftwaffe claimed to have shot down more than 44,000 Soviet aircraft. The top 300 German "aces" claimed 30,000 of that. To put that into perspective, the Luftwaffe claimed to have destroyed 25,000 Allied airplanes on the Western Front. About half of those kills were credited to 500 pilots. There were 107 German pilots who claimed to have shot down 100 or more enemy planes. Eight of those pilots fought on the Western Front. On the Eastern Front Emil Lang was credited with 72 kills within a three week period, among them 18 on a single day. I do not want to go into details how these numbers came about. But these numbers show that Fritz Lüddecke's "score" during this conflict on the Eastern Front was not extraordinary. The whole talk about taking out "almost a regiment sized force" becomes pointless when viewed in the context of air war on the Eastern Front, where he flew hundreds of missions. That might also explain why there is a dearth of reliable sources on Lüddecke, being far from significant coverage.--Assayer (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If this were a 10 or even a 20 kill ace on the eastern front - I wouldn't quibble with this argument. However here we have 50, more than the top scoring US ace with 40 (Richard Bong) - List of World War II flying aces. Kill counts on the Eastern front were indeed high - however many have argued that this isn't as much a function of Soviet air quality but rather that the Germans flew their pilots until they died (Allied pilots would typically fly X missions as part of a tour of duty, then sent to training/desk job unless they volunteered again) - this modus operandi did allow the more skilled German pilots both to gain experience (due to the very high mission count) as well as aircraft kills. The question here is whether we want him listed here - or on various "fan sites" on the web - I think it better it is here and balanced.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That German pilots flew more missions than Allied pilots is one of the reasons why the ran up higher kill scores. But when you are aware of that, how can you still throw German pilots into the same pot with US "aces"? As "the top scoring US ace" Richard Bong received much more attention than Fritz Lüddecke and thus there is also much more coverage of his career by independent third party sources than of Lüddecke's. You might want to call that an historical injustice, but it's the coverage which matters according to WP:GNG. The question whether Wikipedia is a better place for such an article (you argue to keep the stand-alone article, not to maintain a redirect to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L), don't you?) is not part of Wikipedia's notability guideline, nor does it affect it. The article did never include much information and the "fan sites" will feature Lüddecke anyway. And what does "balanced" mean? I do not consider an article to be balanced which brags about extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership.--Assayer (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject lacks significatn coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Assayer and K.e.coffman's analysis. The Knight's Cross has been established as not being significant for notability for some time now, and the lack of general sourcing makes this a pretty easy delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Sigma Rho[edit]

Delta Sigma Rho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability. And the second reference is for a *different* unrelated organization (an honor society in Forensics founded in Chicago in 1906) Naraht (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I intend that not long after this is deleted, I expect to make Delta Sigma Rho a redirect to the combined Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha forensics organization. Note, this is the group the second reference refers to, I just thought the AFD would help with a clean slate.Naraht (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All the WP:RS available appear to refer to the second organization, the merged forensics clubs, rather than this one-campus society. No evidence that this organization has had any impact or recognition beyond the campus, and almost no evidence it has much on its own campus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pathachakra F.C[edit]

Pathachakra F.C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was not able to find any sources, not only discussing the club but merely demonstrating that it exists. The user had other articles speedy deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 27 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) 19:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malav[edit]

Malav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason: "Not Notable" and no sources found for the subject. MahenSingha (Talk) 08:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:58, 28 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SEARCHEN.COM[edit]

SEARCHEN.COM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Because there are no independent references, and no in-depth coverage was found on Google search, does not appear to satisfy software notability or web notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Information on this search engine seems scarce although according to Archive, its been around and in use for many years; if 2005 is accurate, over a decade. Fishnagles (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article sourced to mundane listings and a posting by the company CEO ([31]). The article text does not indicate notability and my searches are not finding anything better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH if considered as a company, and WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; removed CEO article from External links section. Fishnagles (talk) 16:37, 27 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. Before renominating, remember that merging/redirecting can be done without a prior deletion discussion. SoWhy 14:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parasmaninath Temple[edit]

Parasmaninath Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable temple. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Team,
As per my knowledge and information i have verified from my end that this place is authentic and genuine, i do not know how it went for deletion,Please do the needful. Regards, --PawanJha 09:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquejha (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep. The subject temple appears to be notable according to my standards: it has a festival program, it is notably large in size and congregation, it is the site of a major pilgrimage, and a significant icon is housed therein. I was able to copy edit the Hinglish (my apologies to any person or deity who may be insulted). The real problem here is sourcing. Can anyone find good English-language sources? Bearian (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a bit doubtful of the claims. I mean, there no proof that the temple has the tallest Shiva statue in India or even that it is visited by 20000 people. I am struggling to find mentions about this fact. About the temple in general, I couldn't find anything in major English dailies. There is a little bit of coverage in local Hindi dailies. The most reliable of the local sources is Prabhat Khabar, but it only mentions the place by name without any context. The other two Hindi (actually a dialect of Hindi), sources are more like local blogs which also act as an online news source. From what I have seen, this looks like a village temple which may have some prominence among the nearby villages (but I can't find sources to back that claim). I will continue to look for coverage this week, but otherwise I would suggest a redirect to an appropriate article.--DreamLinker (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It says Bihar and Jharkhand not India. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I made a mistake here. The claim is indeed about Bihar/Jharkhand. But that said, I still wasn't able to find any reference for it.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- The article is now improved and I see strong reason to keep this here.--Pankaj (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my point 2 which I have written below. The references that you added do not support the claim or even mention the temple. However, I appreciate that you tried to improve the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge there is existence of the temple and some coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an unfortunate delete, but I am literally not finding enough to even verify the facts, much less write a full article about it. Here's what I managed to find
  1. I have already mentioned that I can't find reliable source which mention it. There are local sources in Maithili available but these seem to be local blogs (which sometimes act as news sources). Only one source mentions the name (without context).
  2. I am not convinced by the claim of another editor that the article was improved in this edit. For example, it added two references [32] and [33] to backup the claim that the temple has "one of the tallest shiva temples in Bihar/Jharkhand". However, there is no mention of the statue in any of the references. Not even the name is mentioned.
  3. The images seem to be copied from a website/facebook page. It is possible that the person who created the article may be a devotee or closely involved with the temple. That might explain why they consider it to be important enough to have a Wikipedia article. But this temple doesn't seem to be important enough to have received coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Madhubani district. Of the sources given, #2 and #4 appear to be local sources associated with the temple and thus not independent, and #1 and #3 appear to be reprints in local media from that source (or perhaps vice-versa). In any event, there is sufficient reason to doubt that this is independently notable, if not to consider it completely deletable. Merging as a local attraction to the logical locale seems the best option. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close (non-admin closure). Win Si Thu redirected to Si Thu Win. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Si Thu Win[edit]

Si Thu Win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two articles, one player. see Win Si Thu Roxy the dog. bark 05:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is this even here could have been A10 as exact duplicate of existing page, or simply converted to redirect. No history, just created and nominated afd. Common sense now says redirect. ClubOranjeT 10:28, 27 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. czar 06:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echelon (card game)[edit]

Echelon (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No secondary sources provided, and the BGG entry for "Echelon" appears to be for a completely different game. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a merge suggestion on the article. BOZ (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gives no evidence of notability; none found. The merge suggestion is to a list of notable games, which this isn't. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not finding anything on this. Artw (talk) 22:46, 27 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) 02:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin phrases in A Canticle for Leibowitz[edit]

List of Latin phrases in A Canticle for Leibowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNDUE, this is excessive as a sub-page. Also un-sourced. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything truly notable like Imago dei or Te Deum will either be an article or a redirect already. For the rest... Does Google Translate do Latin? Yep, we're good here. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geez, clemens, you used to be an inclusionist. What happened? 173.73.172.102 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- It is not apparent from the article the subject of this AFD, but A Canticle for Leibowitz is not a canticle, but a novel; one that I have not read. The analysis of the Latin quotations in the book may indeed be accurate, but that does not make it encyclopedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletio ecce absurdum (okay, so my Latin isn't so hot). The pinnacle of fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic, despite the fact that I am charmed to discover a novel that I have never heard of, and that is older than almost anyone editing here, has fans who Latinam legere possunt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The meaning of the phrases used in this classic adds much to a deeper understanding of it. The criticism that much is unsourced, however valid it may be, can be easily remedied by the addition of sources, while, on the other hand, sources cannot be added to a non-existent article. The notion that Google translate could replace this article is ludicrous. The rich layers of liturgical, biblical, and classical allusion in this article cannot be explained by any machine translation. Rwflammang (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LIST. This is a trivial list of bona for a barely notable novel. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR. Most of the reasons for deletion are technically correct, but, the big picture tells me that Wikipedia will not be improved by deleting this list. The translations are accurate and would be helpful to anyone reading Canticle. A lot of it can be sourced to Prof. Paul Brian's page at WSU (in EL). 173.73.172.102 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Belated response to the above suggesting I'm an inclusionist. I'm really not, and haven't been. I just think that the vast majority of things that are brought up for deletion discussion, could, with improvement be perfectly fine articles. Both 'mergeist' or 'curationist' more accurately depict my bent. In this case, I simply don't think we need the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Federico de la Plana[edit]

Federico de la Plana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. The only reference is trivial and a Google search gives no other results. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question why do not constitutional convention delegates meet NPOL as do members of legislatures. I also question weather google searches are a good way to judge references. I think some actual physical library searches in the Philippines are in order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just to be clear, the reason we accept legislators as automatically notable is because reliable source coverage of them is certain to exist. Even if the article is inadequately sourced as written, we know for a fact that the article can be repaired because media coverage will always exist somewhere. But we can't hand the same automatic presumption of notability to constitutional convention delegates, because there's not a sufficient guarantee that the depth of coverage needed to get them over WP:GNG will exist anywhere — it might, certainly, but it also might not. So they can't be a class of topic where we keep the article regardless of its current state of sourcing — they're a class of topic where tracking down sufficient sources upfront has to come first, as a basic precondition of the article even being allowed to exist at all. But the only source present here is a glancing namecheck of his existence, in the context of handing somebody an envelope, and that's not enough by itself. As well, the article says he was a mayor, but fails to say what town or city he was the mayor of — but mayors don't get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing either, but rather their includability is at least partially dependent on the size of the town or city (although ultimately their sourceability more than anything else). So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody puts in enough work to show that he's more sourceable than this, but nothing here entitles him to a presumption of notability in the absence of better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability, as spelled out clearly immediately above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utambar[edit]

Utambar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Named place that is surveyed in the Indian census is clearly notable under our existing guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair call. It should stay. My oversight. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roger 8 Roger, I'm taking the liberty of closing this as withdrawn even though I've already !voted because you have said it should stay (see WP:SKCRIT1. If you object to this, just undo my edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 27 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 03:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elma S. Beganovich[edit]

Elma S. Beganovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Given the multiple reliable sources in the article, the topic passes WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Topic seems to be as much a business listing as a bio.  It is not listed at bloomberg.com, which in my experience is an indicator that the topic is not Wikipedia notable.  I searched for "Elma S. Beganovich" and "Elma Beganovich" and also tried these names at businessweek.com.  As a topic related to a business listing, the topic is like a startup that might go out of business and hasn't been around long enough that its history would be of interest to readers.  See WP:SUSTAINED.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I scaled through most of the references, I guess the topic passes WP:GNG from every ramifications. Might be too harsh to let the page go.Fatima 77 (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very much in line with WP:BLP. A search on Googlenews also showcases reliable independent references reporting on the individual involved.Kendy2020 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThere are multiple independent or 3rd party references used in the text, Hence the topic scales through WP:GNG.Mendypendy (talk) 06:57, 31 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.

  • Nom+1 advocate for deletion on the basis, mostly, of WP:NEO (which seems to have been reasonably well-rebutted by the article creator
  • Creator+1 advocate for keeping, with Izno specifying "no prejudice against merging"
  • Two advocate for merging to Glossary of video game terms, which is explicitly opposed by creator. Also proposed is is a new section at Matchmaking (video games)#Elo in video games.

Any closure here that chooses either of these option couldn't be anything but a supervote so I'm closing "no consensus", of course without prejudice to continuing talk page discussions about merging or covering this elsewhere. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elo hell[edit]

Elo hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is an article about this on Know Your Meme, the League of Legends Wikia and Urban Dictionary. I would recommend that it remains in those places. I wouldn't have a problem redirecting to LoL's article, but this appears to be WP:NEO, and WP is not a dictionary, especially for niche gaming terms. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "WP is not a dictionary, especially for niche gaming terms" Except for Category:Competitive video game terminology? The article goes beyond just a dicdef and cites more than several reliable sources that made articles specifically about the topic, meaning it's not WP:NEO. I don't see the argument for delete beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As for suggesting it be merged, the term applies to a large number of games, not just League of Legends. It includes Overwatch, Rocket League, etc. And while it could be part of Elo rating system, there are enough references for it to be independently notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to take this personally, man. I'm just making an argument, you make yours. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying you attacked me personally, but doing an immediate AFD without contacting me implies some degree of distrust in my faculties as an editor. Per WP:DOUBT, you could have talk page messaged me and asked for my reasoning before using the nuclear option. I'm not saying I'm afraid it won't hold up to scrutiny, but if I don't defend myself it could easily be deleted by a cavalcade of "Delete per nom".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - @Power~enwiki: What part of WP:NEO does the article violate? Currently your argument is WP:VAGUEWAVE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the references don't use this term, and the ones that do use it generally say that it doesn't exist in the way the article defines it. Overall, the article reads like a personal essay of somebody trying to promote the term. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki:Not all of them use the term, but there are enough that do to make the article notable.
    [34] "You’re stuck in ELO (or MMR) Hell—the popular phrase for feeling stuck at a matchmaking rank beneath your own skill level—and can’t seem to dig your way out."
    [35] "ELO Hell is when a player is stuck below what they consider to be their skill level (which is often blamed on incompetent teammates). "
    [36] "The term comes from the Elo rating system that League of Legends uses for its matchmaking. Because matchmaking has to deal with three or five players on each side, there's a lot of potential for a bad match. In Elo hell, this is exacerbated by players who have inflated ratings due to wins they probably didn't deserve[...]Elo hell is extremely frustrating because nothing worse is having your chance at winning taken out of your hands and put in the hands of a terrible player."
    [37] "In Overwatch, most of the players theoretically stuck in ELO hell are in the middle or lower skill rank of the game. It is a team sport and a group success in matches also means success for the individual players. Many Overwatch players complained that their ELO ratings are not improving because they are stuck with "inferior" team mates."
    They all seem to be in agreement to me that it is a popular term (read: not a neologism) and means the same thing as what is said in the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling to see how this does not meet the bar for WP:NOTDICTIONARY/WP:NEO--it not only defines the concepts but also extends that definition to its effect on the various games and players which use the term (or a derivative; as with Zxcvbnm, this is not just about the single game). The article content might reasonably be merged to video game glossary, but at the minimum, it should be a merge, not a delete. With the current sourcing, it makes a very reasonable stub. I'm a keep without prejudice to a future merge. --Izno (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge title and basics to Glossary of video game terms or elsewhere. The article is essentially about ranked matchmaking, of which the "Elo hell"-specific commentary is minor. Merge the rest to that target. Describe "Elo hell" as a term in the glossary, where others would expect to link/find it, but cover the specifics of the individual ranked matchmaking systems in the best location for Elo in video games, likely a new section of Matchmaking (video games) than a section of Elo rating system. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 23:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggesting a merger implies by default that the base article lacks any sort of independent notability. While it does fall under the purview of Matchmaking (video games), there are enough references (including 3 separate ones that have it in their title and are entirely about it) that it can still stand on its own, perhaps with a link to it as a main article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it implies that the content may be in better context as part of one page than as a separate page. Ranked matchmaking is actually a pretty decent merge target for now, since that page doesn't describe the use of ELO yet (and definitely should given the prominence of ELO ranking as a matchmaking device for pairing players of similar skill potential). --Izno (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH to my other comment, Elo rating system#Use outside of chess already exists, though it's a pile of mostly unsourced crud. --Izno (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to Glossary of video game terms. There's really not much in the way of actual content here. This all could be streamlined into 2 sentences at the list article - one explaining how it got its name, and one explaining the concept - and very little would be lost. The reception section, for example, isn't really so much "reception" as much as its just a few random non-essential quotes related to the concept. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:28, 27 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) 02:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia–Malaysia relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Latvia–Malaysia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. 8 of the 10 sources are primary. Neither country has ambassadors, nor significant trade, nor have there been any state visits ever. I searched Latvia's largest newspaper and all it had was small mentions or covering the MH370 disaster. [38]. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bilateral relations between internationally recognized countries are inherently notable. CJK09 (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there is no inherent notability of bilateral articles. in fact 100s have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Just the fact that two countries are internationally recognized doesn't mean that their bilateral relations are inherently notable. Nothing in this article suggests that relations with Latvia are particularly significant to Malaysia or that relations with Malaysia are particularly significant to Latvia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 27 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. SoWhy 10:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Case[edit]

Classic Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The band fails notability guidelines for music groups. The only reference is to music database site AllMusic and the biography section is totally unreferenced, contrary to the biographies of living persons policy. The band also fails the general notability guideline with a Google search revealing little in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 12:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehh then weak keep I suppose per Chubbles. I would actually like to see the sources but I will WP:AGF and assume they exist. Their album that I mentioned still fails WP:NALBUM to me but that's another discussion for another day.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a classic case of source-rot; a lot of the publications that covered this sort of music aren't online anymore. This band was reviewed in Absolute Punk (now Chorus.FM), but they wiped their entire database when they moved to their new site location. They also got a paper review in Alternative Press, which is how I heard about them, some time in 2005...unfortunately, I didn't save that issue, and it's not replicated online. The AMG biography, at least, is extensive, and notes several tours. The band put out one album on Fiddler (the label that launched New Found Glory and Dashboard Confessional, who both went on to multiplatinum careers) and a second on Fearless Records, one of the leading labels in the genre. Melodic.net gave them a brief review - not a phenomenal source, but it's something. ([39]) There's enough to hurdle WP:MUSIC here. Chubbles (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:26, 27 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Of Creation series (video game)[edit]

Joy Of Creation series (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable, much less significant sources could be found to satisfy WP:GNG, game is non-notable. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are only two sources talking about the game and very little documentation. Thus, not notable enough.R22-3877 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful (if any) content to Five Nights at Freddy's. The only (possibly) reliable sources I could find are this and this. Adam9007 (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 27 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 Clifton, Nova Scotia. SoWhy 10:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock, Colchester County[edit]

Black Rock, Colchester County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article all but admits this isn't a real place; created by blocked user. Mangoe (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See here. The article claims are worthless, but the place is not without history. Too little? Dunno. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 84's link calls it a "rural area" and a separate place a "farm", not a recognized community. All I can find is a Statistics Canada listing that calls it a "locality". Note: the other three entries in Black Rock, Nova Scotia were also created by the same user and are also suspect. Black Rock, Kings County is the best of the lot; I found a masters thesis/ethnographic survey, but not much in the way of official government recognition as a community. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment "The ruins of a French Acadian village, destroyed by British troops in 1755, were visible at the cove in 1767". I'd pause for a second on this. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock, Colchester County, is at the end of the Black Rock Road and looks out to extensive salt marsh and tidal flats on the east side of the Subenacadie River at its opening to Chignecto Bay. Black Rock was the landing place for the ferry that operated in summer for many years across the river to Maitland and was thus an important place on the road between that industrious community and Truro. In 1771 or 1772, Irish planter Samuel Creelman (c.1728-c.1810) and his wife Isabell Flemming (1730-1807) with their six children settled at Black Rock (west end of the Township of Truro)([2]). According to Miller, Samuel and Isabell (the ancestors of most Nova Scotia Creelmans) "were buried near the house of Mr James Davis, about one mile from the Black Rock." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald L. Forbes (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Clifton, Nova Scotia (the closest match to a legal, populated place per WP:GEOLAND). The sources provided seem to agree that Black Rock is, at most, a long-since-historic ferry landing or farm. They even differ on whether the locality is on the East or West bank of the the river in question. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Frontier Closed Area. czar 06:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Border Road[edit]

Border Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability shown. Google searches show nothing. —CycloneIsaac (Talk) 02:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It isn't a publicly accessible place, but it doesn't mean it isn't notable. Hyungjoo98 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No results on the road that I could see. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, don't delete, but create a redirect to Frontier Closed Area and migrate all content there. Hyungjoo98 (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Frontier Closed Area as per Hyungjoo98. It would make a great addition to that article. Matt's talk 05:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 27 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 Prospera Centre. Consensus is not to keep, redirects are a good cheap alternative ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chilliwack Sports Hall of Fame[edit]

Chilliwack Sports Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local hall of fame, very little coverage, and nothing which would allow it to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful content to Chilliwack#Sports or Prospera Centre. Mindmatrix 15:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the edit history, without prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a related topic. This could certainly be briefly mentioned in our articles about the city and the venue per Mindmatrix, but a local sports hall of fame does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because a couple of pieces of local media coverage exist — it would have to clear WP:ORGDEPTH, which requires coverage to exist beyond the purely local. But at the same time there isn't really any substantive or noteworthy content to merge beyond mentioning the fact that it exists, so neither copying any significant block of content over to another article nor retaining its edit history are needed at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW: I didn't notice when making my earlier comment that the bulk of the article was already deleted as a copyvio. At most, I would retain its existence and location, and maybe the categories and the one notable member. There really isn't much salvageable content here. Mindmatrix 12:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 27 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.  Sandstein  08:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Canute[edit]

Danielle Canute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi. The subject is not notable. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - winner of a notable reality TV series Spiderone 10:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete winning a reality series does not make a model notable. Significant work as a model does, and no show of this in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 10:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knoel Scott[edit]

Knoel Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As much as I hate to nominate a page of someone who I somewhat know (musically; never met the man), there are a total of 27 GNews hits for Scott, almost all of them being one-or-two-line mentions, and almost all being in the context of being in Sun Ra's band. He just doesn't appear to be independently notable. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's an exceptional musician second in command of the SUN RA Arkestra and in line to take the place of Marshall Allen who is now in his 90s and I believe it's time his talents are recognised. He appears with different names, notably Noel and Nöel, but I believe they are misspelling of his name as we can see at https://www.discogs.com/artist/263455-Noel-Scott?filter_anv=1&anv=N%C3%B6el+Scott and https://www.discogs.com/artist/263455-Noel-Scott and in both cases we find references to other albums he played on.
Plus he worked on side projects and he led his own trios, quartets and quintets through the years and it's difficult to ignore such a prolific career. Discogs includes an extensive list of credits for Knoel at https://www.discogs.com/artist/263455-Noel-Scott?filter_anv=0&type=Credits and I personally believe musicians in his league should be recognised for their work.Tonetrade (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As do I, but Wikipedia has very specific guidelines of inclusion for its articles. I do not deny that he has produced a lot of work, but he is severely lacking in detailed coverage in reliable sources. Someone could make 1000 albums in their lifetime, but if they never get discussed they are simply not notable according to Wikipedia's standards. As a note, discogs is simply a listing of all the works of someone, and while decent for verifying facts, does almost nothing for notability (same with Allmusic). Primefac (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the two recently added reviews were enough to get to GNG for me. Editorial comment - we have articles on virtually every kid that ever picked up a mic and rapped. This guy has been a jazz icon for decades. Somehow we need to account for the cultural interest in pop forms vs more traditional forms. John from Idegon (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The creator of and primary contributor to the article, Tonetrade, has been advised to seek out print magazine articles about Knoel Scott from the pre-internet era; I expect that such sources exist, but am unable to search them out on my own. I am reserving my !vote at this time, but hope that the article will be relisted to give Tonetrade (and other interested editors) time to find non-digitized sources to supplement what's already cited. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...whiiiich, due to their current indefinite block 🚫 for spamming, they are unlikely to do. Just FYI. — fortunavelut luna 07:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The user formerly known as Tonetrade is now Harlesdenbop; blocks for promotional names are always indefinite, but the admin who changed the username left the issue of whether to unblock the user based on the COI issue for another admin, and thus far it seems no one has addressed the unblock request. I had never heard of Knoel Scott before this AfD, unlike Primefac, but I share John from Idegon's concern about WP giving undue weight to more recently-debuting musicians in other genres. I'm hoping that Harlesdenbop will be unblocked and allowed to share (on the article's talk page) information from magazines that he has access to which haven't been digitized; I agree that editing the article directly would be a problem, but this is one of the reason we have talk pages. I have worked with a number of COI editors so that Wikipedia could have new articles which began improperly remain on the site in conformance with our policies, and I would be more than happy to do so again in this instance. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recently-added references show that he has received significant, independent coverage and passes WP:GNG. The COI issue is therefore not relevant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Indoor Football League season[edit]

2018 Indoor Football League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL; teams have until September to declare their intent to play in the league. Article is also improperly sourced. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There are no prediction here. All the iformation is properly sourced including from official IFL source. This article is similar to Super_Bowl_LIV to Super Bowl LV. Can you please identify which sources you consider "improper." Although all things may not have been decided, but there is enough material here to warrant its inclusion. Althogh they HAVE until September it doesn't mean that they can't make a decision before than. and they have: See here [40] So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TheGreatWikiLord (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Keep it seems that the league has made good faith plans to hold the season and there seems to be at least some minimal coverage of it. Even if it does not actually happen we have many articles about events that never took place (such as the 1940 Summer Olympics, the 1940 Winter Olympics, and the 1994 World Series).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, keep. Typically, pages for the nearest upcoming season are acceptable if there are enough references to say that it should happen. In fact, the IFL's own usage of the word "committed" in regards to the five teams that have committed to the 2018 season seems to indicate that the event in question will take place. The part that would be speculation at this point is what any of the other teams that aren't committed to the 2018 season will do. So far there have only be "reports" (as in no one has actually confirmed) on the departures of the other teams. That is will be need to be clarified on the September 1 deadline. (FYI, I believe there was one season where Sioux Falls said nothing until August 30 or so.) However, if things fall through and the league does not play, then redirect to the IFL page or delete it. Yosemiter (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Redirect/Merge into the IFL for now. Based on recent announcements at the Quad City Steamwheelers (CIF) expansion announcement, they handed out pamphlets with the two remaining unconfirmed teams as CIF members. On top of that, it stated there are 5 more teams currently in the application process of joining the CIF. A bit of speculation right now, but it certainly indicates the league may not play next season (probably about 50/50). As it stands right now, the 2018 season page does not have enough independent significant and reliable sources to have its own page per GNG. It may get plenty of coverage if the league ceases operations, but that would be better covered on the league page. No need to straight up delete just yet, keep the edit history and name as a place holder in case the league rebounds it membership. Yosemiter (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is really not that far into the future that WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Games start in February so inclusion of teams and schedules and articles on athlete plans should be available. FYI to nominator @Jd22292:, articles likes these (upcoming season) really shouldn't go to AFD, they should just be redirects to the parent article, so the original article can easily be restored, and someone else looking for the article can find it as a redirect and not independently start a new article from a redlink. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to TheGreatWikiLord: Sometime after nominating this article, I removed two sources pointing to Salina Liberty (a CIF team) that did not seem related to IFL in any way. Hopefully this answers your question on specific improper sources. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply As Paul McDonald said there are many many for events that never occurred. Even if this season never takes places, there is is till enough coverage to make it notable. Again, I disagree with Crystal ball argument, that does not apply here. No one is predicting anything, see my Superbowl statement above. Thank you User:Jd22292 for making the necessary corrections. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonably close enough in the future that we should have an article on it. If it was 10 years out that would be one thing, but deleting an article that we are probably only going to have to recreate within the year makes no sense. If the league ceases operations before the season can be played, we can revisit the AfD then. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 10:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonis Ahmar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Moonis Ahmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spend some time finding sources but there is no independent in-depth coverage for him. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Greenbörg (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a later career academics are most often notable. A full professor since 2001 (1 January 2001 to date, professor, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi); two published books; sufficient google cites. If kept, remove the "Teaching positions" section --

it only obscures the notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

later career academics are most often notable. What does that mean? And how does it relate to policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Nothing in-depth there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Coffman's got a good point, but I can't find any reliable sources to cover him. Jdcomix (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 27 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 The Away Team. Content is in the history for anyone to merge into The Away Team ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Boog[edit]

Sean Boog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boog is a rap singer who was a member of a somewhat notable duo The Away Team. However, notability is not inherited and there are no reliable sources that can claim he is significant as a solo artist. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  08:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  08:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case was in my rationale but I'll support a merge since there is a more than relevant article that can mention some of his solo work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:05, 27 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 List of Dragonlance modules and sourcebooks#Age of Mortals. Nothing sourced to merge czar 06:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Mortals: Dragonlance Campaign Setting Companion[edit]

Age of Mortals: Dragonlance Campaign Setting Companion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references and no sign of meeting WP:NBOOK. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anova Culinary[edit]

Anova Culinary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am closing this discussion and keeping the article. I believe this article can be cleaned up. The article has plenty of sources and is relevant enough to stay. AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In effect, an advertisement. I advised the contributor to remove some of the listing of routine product features, such as keeping things warm, but they thought it essential to the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to you DGG and made edits as you pointed out. I discussed it giving my own opinion and did say that to which I didn't receive a response:
"If you have other opinions, or perspective, please go ahead and update to what you see is right. We can discuss it there in the talk page if necessary. I can't get it perfect alone and that should be your priority instead of leaving me alone with the updates or it gets deleted."
Again, if you have an opinion on what should be done, go ahead instead of deleting my work entirely. And I deleted the 'warm' sentence btw. Have a great day! Kellyhei (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the article probably needs a good dose of cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete it. I see plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs a ton of cleanup and some reworking of sections but those are not valid reasons to delete the article. The article has plenty of sources and is relevant enough to stay. I will try to save and fix this article. AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:11, 28 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 03:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaya (Canadian singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kaya (Canadian singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Kaya (Canadian singer){{subst:!}}View AfD]] · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

to Wikipedia team, I am the subject of the page and I request to delete it because I regard myself as a non-notable, a private person, not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Also, articles and links are poorly sourced and most of the links do not work and exist anymore and are only from small regional French papers and talk about things that I have done when I was 7 to 24 years old (I am almost 50 now). My life is totally different than what is mentioned and many facts and years that are mentioned are not right, not accurate. I do not feel it is worth for me or Wikipedia to rewrite or correct it. Also, links and sources are from small regional papers and all articles are in French and people who speak English do not understand them. Thank you for having the kindness to delete this page. I truly believe it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. FLK 72 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comment. For diff of where FLK 72 made this nomination on the article, see here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Firstly, Wikipedia does not have any rule that our sources need to be in English — as long as our article is in English, the sources can be in any language. And we also don't have any requirement that the sources be web-accesible, either — as long as complete citation details (title of the source, name of the publication and date) were provided, if the weblink dies we still have a wholly valid reference, because all we have to do is strip the URL and turn it into a citation to the print version of the reference instead of the web version.
    And secondly, while we can certainly limit our coverage of your current life as it stands today, you have Juno Award and Prix Félix nominations in your past when you were making mainstream pop and rock music — which means that we have to be able to have some form of an article about you, because that's a straight WP:NMUSIC pass for which an article must be allowed to exist. While I'll admit that it does contain two artists who don't actually have articles yet, we simply can't deem a shortlisted Juno Award for Artist of the Year nominee — which you are — to be off limits as an article topic: every person listed there must be either an article or a potential future article, with no exceptions for any reason. Same for Juno Award for Francophone Album of the Year, where you also have a nomination under your belt.
    We can certainly make some edits to the article to balance your prominence in the 1990s against your personal privacy rights as a lower-profile private citizen in the 2010s — but the article is based on reliable sources, which means that if anything in it is wrong that's the sources' fault and not ours, and articles must be allowed to exist on Wikipedia about past Juno nominees. There can simply never be an exception to that: the Juno nominations mean we have to maintain an article about at least that part of your life, and the only room for debate is how much the article does or doesn't need to say about what you're doing now. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no policy-based rationale for deletion. You pass musical artist notability and as Bearcat says, that means you are notable. DrStrauss talk 22:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Maybe WP should have a policy if somebody wants to remove himself definitely with all the privacy related matters these days. Despite that fact the subject is passing musical artist notability . --ClrView (talk) 09:00, 28 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. czar 05:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Valmas[edit]

Konstantinos Valmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:18, 27 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. czar 05:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sosemo[edit]

Sosemo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Award described in the article is only reported on by press releases. [43] -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:20, 27 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. ^ Climbing Chains puzzle for example
  2. ^ Thomas Miller. Historical and Genealogical Record of the First Settlers of Colchester County, Down to the Present Time, Compiled from the Most Authentic Sources. Halifax: A.& W. MacKinlay, 1873. pp. 365-366
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_August_27&oldid=1140159804"