Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 August	29 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to Minecraft#Cultural impact. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total Miner[edit]

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

There don't seem to be any sources that mention it as the subject of an article, such that it passes WP:GNG. All mentions that I have found appear to be incidental or not from a reliable source. Created by a WP:SPA._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Search results from GNEWS turned out nothing. Zazzysa (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game has not generated enough reliable third-party sources to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably deserves a mention in Minecraft (and indeed, it has one), given XBLA top 2011 top indie list, comparison to Minecraft, comparison to Minecraft, and XBLA top 2012 top indie list. If you want, delete and redirect to Minecraft#Cultural impact or Minecraft#Clones (probably the former), else a simple redirect will do. --Izno (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to Minecraft#Cultural impact otherwise not enough reliable third-party sources to establish notability. --ClrView (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minecraft #Cultural impact per previous users. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:17, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Browning[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable starlet~~; made two films.~~ with only two celluloid credits to her name. Even less notable than sister, Lynn Browning, whose article has also been AFDed. Just nothing notable at all about her career, which is comprised of one uncredited film role and one appearance on a TV sitcom three decades or so later. Quis separabit? 22:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete No mentions on GNEWS, few passing mentions on GBOOKS but nothing that really establishes notability. Zazzysa (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Browning did not do enough work as an actress to merit notability, even if she had some interesting friends in Hollywood.TH1980 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:31, 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 speedy delete. Essentially a copyvio of their web page -- this really should have been checked before nominating DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisconsin Center for Academically Talented Youth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Also has WP:PROMO undertones. DrStrauss talk 22:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Reinmann[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Article was created only as a result of subject's criminal record; was not notable prior to that. Article in native Estonian language has been deleted since January 17, 2009. Article is an orphan. Former member of Tallinn City Council. We have no article about that elected body. wbm1058 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Tallinn is a large and prominent enough city that its councillors might pass WP:NPOL if they could be properly sourced and substanced, there's no content here at all about anything but the criminal charges themselves. And, in fact, all but one of the reference links deadlink back to the publication's front splash page, making it impossible to properly verify whether they cover him in any other context, or just address the criminal allegations. Which makes this a WP:BLP1E, as well as a WP:PERP violation: criminal charges are not in and of themselves grounds for an article, if there's no other substantive claim of notability being made at all. And if even the Estonian Wikipedia can't be arsed to keep an article about an Estonian politician, there's no compelling reason for the English one to do so either. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write and source something better — i.e. less unbalanced — than this. We're an encyclopedia, not a public "name and shame" board for everybody who ever did something illegal. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 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. So Why 10:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucerne International Music Ensemble[edit]

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

There are few independent, reliable sources that confer music group notability available. Content is sparse and if such sources were available I doubt that the article could become more than a mere directory entry. DrStrauss talk 22:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any media coverage or even any performance schedules. There's actually no indication that I can find suggesting this organization even exists anymore. Fails WP:RS TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Delete because my searching didn't find anything to establish WP:N. Weak because I didn't put as much effort into the searching as it really deserves. Mostly, I wanted to comment about There's actually no indication that I can find suggesting this organization even exists anymore, above. Whether it still exists or not isn't a factor in determining WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I know that - I'm just making the point in context that there's nothing about it now, but also likely nothing to appear any time soon. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:45, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeerWeb[edit]

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

Fails website notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable web forum. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 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 redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest[edit]

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Dane ^talk 18:27, 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 redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest[edit]

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Dane ^talk 18:33, 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 redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest[edit]

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Dane ^talk 18:36, 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 redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest[edit]

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:54, 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 redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#Participation. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest[edit]

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 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 redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#Participation. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest[edit]

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 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 redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest[edit]

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. This is surely the same issue as the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest – it's WP:TOOSOON to create an article like this one until any confirmed particpation has been announced. Richard3120 (talk) 22:49, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiavari chair[edit]

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

Hi, I want to delete this because there aren't proper sources.Winuserunlimited (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This chair is notable due to how old it is.TH1980 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep You purposefully removed content from the article in an attempt to influence the debate before the nom. I've restored what you've removed because that is absolutely not allowed within an AfD. Notable mass-produced chair with plenty of great sourcing and images (which I suspect you knew removing would influence the debate with 'delete' vote!s because they wouldn't know what the object looks like). Next time you nominate, the content as-is in the article must remain unless it violates copyright. Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to deter pointy nominations. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja Morell[edit]

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

Character supposedly from The Bill TV show that never existed - original page creator seemed to have got confused with character Rowanne Morell who already is mentioned on the character list article. Hence, there are zero sources for this character and any searches simply return copies of this page. Merge not appropriate as character did not exist. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 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. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Diocese of Chiavari[edit]

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

Hi, want to delete this page cause it's not relevant. Winuserunlimited (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep dioceses are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bye, that's not how it works. It's a diocese. It's sourced. It's in the heart of the Roman Catholic homeland. We're not deleting this. Nate • (chatter) 02:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory and Mrschimpf. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep - Can penalties be considered for people who initiate pointless, poorly justified (to the point of absurdity), and disruptive AFDs? Is there a wikipedia policy for this? XavierItzm (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: The freaking hell? This nom deserves a serious trout slap for (a) nominating an active Roman Catholic Diocese with over a hundred parishes, and (b) on such a bloody specious and illegitimate ground. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nominator is a blocked sock who has repeatedly tried to get this article deleted. Sro23 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. With 139 parishes, it's a decent-sized RCC diocese. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid rationale presented for deletion. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonino De Lorenzo[edit]

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

Not sure they are notable and reads like an ad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant advertising and no clear indication that subject passes the academic notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising fad diets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Browning[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable actress/performer Quis separabit? 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable actress/performer. I have never heard of her nor anything she has been in. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR: None of her roles were large, and she does not seem to have a significant fan base. Many references in published RS verify that she acted in many films [1], but these are all passing mentions at best and do not satisfy WP:GNG either. FourViolas (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She only had one credited role, and thus lacks notability.TH1980 (talk) 23:49, 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. Or rather "outcome depends on action on different article". The name issues can be resolved by a move discussion and a merger ought to be discussed on the talk page, but apparently first Battle of Mosul (2016–17) needs to be changed - sometimes that also ought to be discussed on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–17) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mosul liberation[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of Battle of Mosul (2016–17); contains little to no useful information which is not already in the main page, and has an implausible title (note that Liberation of Mosul also redirects to the battle page). ansh 666 20:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The parent article is huge, at over 600kb and often you will find notable or in-depth aspects of certain articles split off into a dedicated article, if for instance the content being split is notable in its own right. I feel in this instance, the libration of Mosul was quite a significant event in its own right. Given the size of the parent article, my suggestion would be to rename the article relating to this AfD to something more mainstream (perhaps to Liberation of Mosul by deleting that redirect first), then cleanup this article and amend the parent article to offer a summary only. In fact, the Battle of Mosul article even has a message since May suggesting a content split, so it may be counter-productive and somewhat regressive to delete this article rather than at least trying to first develop it further. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the main article comes from the daily action recaps, which are really unnecessary there. If there's anything that should be split off, it would be those, into a "Timeline of..." type article. I don't think the sources distinguish between the battle and liberation enough to justify this separate article, especially considering the majority of those currently in this article are either Iranian propaganda (PressTV) or not even related to the end of the battle (most of them being about the beginning, strangely). ansh 666 22:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe! I created this article hoping that users working on the parent page would soon join in expanding this one too. I for my part primarily used Iranian sources because they are the sources that I often check as an Iranian. The development was undoubtedly a major one both for Iran and Iraq who organized and supplied the main forces on the ground doing the actual fight, as well as the international community that have been dealing with the ISIS threat for years. The article though can be further expanded by additional sources and analysis. The coverage has been significant as a Google result will tell. Ansh is also raising an apparently valid point; whether the sources distinguish between the liberation and the battle enough. Hmmm just telling from the google results, it seems that they do. But if the parent article can be shortened or split off, maybe let's first do that and then decide whether the liberation page should be merged into that, making it one within a standard size. --Expectant of Light (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At the very least this needs to be renamed. Liberation is POV-pushing (though one most Wiki readers agree with) - possibly reconstruction is better. A year or year range should also be in the name (as this is NOT the first time Mosul has be conquered (or per POV liberated) - it changed hands in the past, even the recent past)). Do we have an article on the wider reconstruction efforts in Iraq following the loss of territory by the Islamic State? Do we have articles, on the city level, for other cities that were conquered as part of a campaign? I don't think we have one for Battle of Stalingrad which is much more significant. We do have articles on the country/region level for post-WWII occupations - but not city level I believe. The size problem in Battle of Mosul (2016–17) should be fixed there (and is underway) - it currently goes into a level of detail inappropriate for an 8 month campaign.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PlatinumWealth[edit]

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

There's just really nothing that I'm finding to suggest that this is a notable website. A new search returns 148 results, but nearly all of them are to moneyweb.co.za, so much so that when you exclude them from results you are left with exactly two ([2], [3]). Turns out, both of those show up because the site is mentioned in the comments section, and not in the article at all.

And it turns out that of the moneyweb sites, looks like most/all of those are also showing up because of a registered account named PlatinumWealth.co.za which apparently regularly comments on content there.

It's promotional, but long enough that there's probably something in there conceivably savable, and it makes a claim of significance, but... just doesn't appear to be notable at this time. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator: Promotional with no signs of significant coverage. The fact that the owner is registering using his website name to comment profusely elsewhere indicates that they are trying to increase their visibility; this article is no doubt another step toward that goal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJW. The subject fails WP:N on both of its points: it doesn't have substantial independent coverage, and it is excluded from being included in Wikipedia per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unmesh Joshi[edit]

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

Fails biographical notability guidelines. Notability isn't inherited and his biggest "claim to fame" is his father. DrStrauss talk 19:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability and GNG. Quis separabit? 20:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG but at the same time I would not be opposed as to redirecting the page to Manohar Joshi as a plausible search term. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited Spiderone 09:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prasoon PrahaladaN[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. No in-depth coverage. Google search shows the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just another version of Prasoon Prahaladan that has already been deleted three times per CSD A7. Time for an SPI and a couple of blocks? Mduvekot (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth. If it's been deleted repeatedly and there's little likelihood that it can be a viable article, then the article needs to be salted. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting notability requirements. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 03:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pages should also be salted due to repeated creation: Prasoon PrahaladaN as well as Prasoon Prahaladan. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 03:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sckoropad Twins[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Little coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 19:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not established, and several of the references/links provided are either dead or 404. PK T(alk) 19:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They'd probably qualify for an article if it could be properly sourced — but nearly all of the sources here are primary, and the two that are actually reliable source coverage about them in media independent of them don't represent enough coverage to get them over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Fayza[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All this does is state that he exists and reference the fact to his own staff profile on the website of his own employer. This is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article: he needs to be the subject of media coverage in reliable sources independent of his paycheque provider. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps TOOSOON. Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:37, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venetia Kapernekas[edit]

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

Fails artistic notability guidelines. The article has promotional undertones and refers largely to self-published sources. DrStrauss talk 18:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an artist, but an art dealer. Although she is not insignificant in the New York's art scene, the sources available on the net are mostly announcents on events happening in her gallery. The New York Art Beat website has a small piece on her, and there is wide coverage on the press of the settlement between her, and her ex-lover, art collector Udo Brandhorst, heir to the Henkel AG & Company (see for example the article of the New York Post). But it seems that this happens mostly because of Brandhorst; he is the famous guy. To conclude, I am for delete. ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:16, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pranay Narayan[edit]

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

Appears to fail biographical notability guidelines. Little meaningful coverage in independent, reliable sources. I tried to cut down the promotional tone in one paragraph but there may not be much content left if continued. We must be mindful of the biographies of living persons policy and as much of the personal life section is poorly referenced it must be deleted. Possibly fails actor notability guidelines too. Also note that this has been deleted before per WP:A7 and WP:G11. DrStrauss talk 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find any additional coverage in reliable sources that goes beyond a passing mention, and very few such passing mentions, too. There's no indication that he meets the notability criteria. Huon (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Istanbul Bosphorus[edit]

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

This article, Conrad Istanbul Bosphorus, seems to be here simply to promote the hotel and largely includes contributions from a paid editor, User:Valgetova. Leutha (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created without the {{afd2}} template and was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Leutha: For future nominations please fully follow the procedures as WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope they didn't pay that editor much because article is pure PROMO; it makes no claim to notability and provides no reliable, secondary sourcing. Delete what appears to be a non-notable ordinary, large, modern hotel. A quick earch didn't turn up anything but routine coverage, but if somebody finds solid sourcing to support notability, feel free to flag me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of passing either the general or the specific notability guidelines, since all the independent coverage apparently available is either passing mentions or booking sites. No indication that this is any more notable than an average urban hotel. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 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) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gagik Manoukian[edit]

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

This was deleted once previously as WP:G12, and there are still some probably considerable close paraphrasing issues, but it's a bit hard to tell because it looks like the author has altered the particular wording so that verbatim searches don't tell much.

There are serious tone issues anyway, although it's arguably poorly written vaguely promotional English, rather than well written obviously promotional English. And I sympathize.

Web searches don't return very much of anything at all. Unless some of these claimed collections are permanent and important or some of this persons works is renouned and widely covered in a way that is at least non-obvious to me, I don't think there much to expect the subject passes WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I explained to the editor who created the article: I'm concerned about the notability of the subject and his exhibition record. I don't recognize any of the exhibition venues, except one, Allingawier (I'm from the Netherlands). Allingawier is a tiny village that has approximately 60-80 inhabitants (it depends on how you count) but it definitely has no castle. Naturally, this makes me wonder about the other venues; a "personal exhibition in /Berlin/Prague/Oslo"? Unless there are independent, reliable sources that allow us to verify these claims, I'm afraid we're going to have to dismiss them and conclude that the subject fails our notability criteria. Mduvekot (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither the references that are provided nor the hits on a Google search indicate a notable artist. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication the subject comes close to passing the notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erol Kahraman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both NHOCKEY and WP:NFOOTY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication of wider GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. This seems to be a start in terms of indicating GNG but is very local and insufficient on its own. Fenix down (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turko-Tatar[edit]

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

All of the coverage appears to be on websites such as WordReference or Dictionary.com, thereby failing WP:NOTDICT. If the outcome of the debate is to delete, I'm more than happy to adapt it for use on Wikitionary. DrStrauss talk 17:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any other sources when I searched in the usual places. Nomader (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not more than a dictionary definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 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 delete and redirect to MTV Video Music Awards. So Why 10:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vmas[edit]

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

This article has been on Wikipedia for ten years and literally nothing has been added to it since its creation. I would be for redirecting this article to MTV Video Music Awards rather than deleting it, however, if consensus agrees. JE98 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main site is 404 and there are zero references. No evidence that there was any significant coverage, or even existence, previously. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fine with a redirect per nom. Else Delete. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May have been a hoax network. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:10, 6 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. WP:SNOW. Despite that though, I think Johnpacklambert's point at the end is a good one. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary_Null[edit]

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

I am an Attorney representing Gary Null in his attempt to have his Wikipedia page removed. Gary Null's Wikipedia page should be deleted because it breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which requires verifiability, i.e. that the information comes from reliable sources. On Gary Null's page, Reference #3 for the statement "He is an ADIS denialist and anti-vaccinationist" results in a 404-error page and thus not be considered a reliable source. Further, Gary Null's page is decidedly negative, which goes against Wikipedia's requirement for a Neutral Point of View. Donickma (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donickma (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , Nom is correct regarding the "salon" link, but it just needs correcting. The decidedly negative tone is just a reflection of Null and his relationship to the mainstream scientific view. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable (just) person. Reason given for deletion is spurious. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets all of our relevant notability guidelines. I've replaced the dead Salon link with an archived version from Wayback. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the Salon link which seems to have been the main objection to the page has been corrected, and the subject's notability is well established. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet guidelines. Artw (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BLPFRINGE. (The neutrality of this article has also been discussed multiple times at WP:BLPN.) -Location (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) edited to include parenthetical comment 23:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Neutral" is not the same as making everybody look good. ApLundell (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet notability criteria and AfD is not the right venue to propose corrections. The article does not appear to be an attack page considering the sources and tone. NPOV does not mean that the article should be promotional; it is about reflecting in due weight what reliable sources report. —Paleo Neonate – 01:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. WP:SNOW. A quote from Jimbo Wales: "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.". Off-line sources (e.g. books) can be reliable, and dead links should not be removed (and fixing them is usually quite simple). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the proposer of this AfD has attempted to rewrite history on a technicality which has since been fixed, and has an obvious conflict of interest in making their client look good when countless reliable sources paint him in a different light. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called balance. Anything else is pandering. Facts is facts, even in Trump's America. Famous _dog (c) 06:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is a notable person and appears to meet the guidelines.--ClrView (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article's subject is notable; an editor has addressed the dead link mentioned by the OP by replacing it with an copy curated in the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive. The source in question meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source, thus the statement in question is verifiable. WP:NPOV does not require our articles to avoid discussing controversies surrounding living persons or to withhold opinions expressed by others regarding living persons or their acts or statements - just that they be presented neutrally. WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP require that we take care that statements made about living persons are verifiable and reliably sourced. The statements regarding the subject of this article all can be verified by the reader to be based on reliable sources. loupgarous (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relatively detailed and well-sourced article on a minor fringe writer. Meets notability criteria. I found contradictions between the Lead and the body of the article, but I think I fixed them. Dimadick (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In answer to OP's statement "Gary Null's page is decidedly negative, which goes against Wikipedia's requirement for a Neutral Point of View", WP:BLP says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." We did that. Any negative inferences drawn about the subject are solely owing to the subject's own contentious statements and reactions to those statements reported in reliable sources for information. It's no more POV for us to include that information in an article than it is for us to report on other WP:FRINGE theories and their reception by outside commentators. loupgarous (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete suject is not notable enough that there is any reason to have an article on the subject against his wish. Having this article against a clear desire not to on the part of this marginally notable person is a violation of the spirit of BLP rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mduvekot (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Jeong[edit]

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

Largely unsourced biography of a Korean poet. The article in Korean Wikipedia is noticeably shorter. It would be possible to trim this article down to the size of its Korean counterpart, were it not that that article is entirely unsourced. The only source with a link is an article by the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources, please review. Koreanlit (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 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 snow keep. To be fair, the version I nominated was rubbish but users have since improved it but it's clear that this nomination should be withdrawn. Thanks in particular to Nomader who did much of the improvement. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 16:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XVideos[edit]

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

TL;DR: delete per WP:NWEB, WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG.

For the benefit of doubt, all the links that I provide to back up my argument are safe-for-work.

I am approaching this nomination with some caution because I may be tarred and feathered if not. Yes, this article is the most-viewed stub per the weekly ORES ratings. Yes, it’s ranked 50 on Alexa’s list of most popular websites. Does it meet our criteria for inclusion? I would say not.

This and this are the only coverage the website has received in independent, reliable sources. The first one fails single-event notability standards, because it’s just about a firefighter falling to his death whilst trying to remove pornographic images from the website from a hoarding and the second one is about someone wanting pornographic videos to include the Indian National Anthem which isn’t subject to in-depth, meaningful coverage. The petition by the proposer for this measure got 66 signatures so cannot be construed as notable in itself.

The only policy-based counter-argument against this nomination is per the web content notability guidelines. However, such an argument would be misplaced an incorrect because nowhere in these guidelines does it say that being the 50th most-visited website confers any notability at all. The other argument would be “but it’s popular, look at the ORES statistics”. Well, people may visit the article a lot but it is nothing than a mere directory entry which says it’s a website which provides pornography which the reader could probably guess from looking at their website. In other words, it’s not really an article.

DrStrauss talk 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere that indicates "most visited websites in the world" are presumed notable. Maybe the lack of coverage could be the result of it being a pornographic site. I haven't gone through yet but I'll see if I can work something out and decide my vote — Za wl 15:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I've not come across such a guideline. There is WP:ALEXA but that is more a rule-of-thumb test which is applied to articles with content worth saving. And Pornhub, for example, is a pornographic site with significant media coverage. DrStrauss talk 16:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, this is definitely going to be one of the more interesting keep !votes that I've ever done. Per WP:PORN's sources section, XVideos is covered in a number of reliable sources that cover the industry (note that they're specifically reliable for adult industry news, NOT just general RS's-- I could see an oppose coming down saying that the sites themselves aren't reliable, but consensus so far has established them as such). I've listed a number of reliable sources below:
- From AVN: [4], [5], [6]
- From XBiz: [7], [8]
- I don't think there's any other rationale for deleting this article that I can see, and I therefore !vote keep. Just a note here as well that AVN and XBiz are probably not SFW for anyone reviewing sources. Nomader (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a note here on the links I gave-- almost all of them have to do with legal stuff. There's a few articles that I found as well that mention it as "world-famous" or "one of the largest" sites but it's always a side-mention. I specifically chose these sources to address the notes brought up by DrStrauss. Nomader (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anything numbers 4 and 5 could just be used as citations on cybersquatting. XVideos isn't the main topic of either of them per se, just an example. As for 1, 2 and 3, they do constitute coverage but the only coverage they give is to numerous lawsuits brought against the company, and their inclusion without significant other coverage would violate the undue weight principle. DrStrauss talk 17:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. There's also coverage from these sources as well though ([9], [10]), the first one describing it as "currently the largest adult site" in 2012 and the other one expanding on another article from AVN. There's also the book Pink 2.0: Encoding Queer Cinema on the Internet which discusses Xvideos at length and was published by the Indiana University Press ([11]). I don't think it's going to win any awards for 'best article of the year', but I think that XVideos definitely meets WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding to this list-- The Economist also did a write-up on the state of the porn industry and talked about an attempted acquisition of XVideos by Mindgeek ([12]). It's a somewhat passing mention but it should be usable to flesh out the article. Nomader (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Searches for XVideo at Google Scholar yields about 325 results & about 92,300 results at Google News. "Just How Big Are Porn Sites?". extremetech.com. stated in 2012 that "Xvideos, the largest porn site on the web with 4.4 billion page views per month, is three times the size of CNN or ESPN, and twice the size of Reddit."

Why are we even debating notability at this point when it is clear that this article needs to be expanded beyond stub status? Because I often edit from a work computer (those Google searches done on a break from my personal notebook, BTW), I stay away from any sources for this article. Many of the edits over the history, when not vandalizing it or reverting vandalism, seem to keep trimming it down, hence one reason why it is so paltry. It is clear to me that the problem here is not a dearth of sources or notability, but the lack of editing dedicated to this topic.

Peaceray (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're debating notability because I have written a lengthy and detailed rationale which challenges the article's encyclopedic notability. Neither WP:NWEB nor WP:GNG say simple page views or search engine hits confer notability. Your keep !vote appears to be on the grounds that there are lots of hits or page views and doesn't analyse them in-depth. Sorry if this sounds crotchety, it's not intended to be. DrStrauss talk 21:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your rational & disagree with its conclusion. There is more to XVideos in potential sources than just the Alexa ranking. Again I return to the quote that I posted: "Xvideos, the largest porn site on the web with 4.4 billion page views per month, is three times the size of CNN or ESPN, and twice the size of Reddit." I fail to see what is unnotable about being the world's largest porn site when it is considerably larger than either CNN, ESPN, or Reddit, & ranked in the top 50 websites.

Regarding your statement about the two sources appearing in independent media, well, the one about the firefighter falling to his death seems to be negative cherry picking. Having just provided an independent source not in your set of two, I am highly skeptical that one cannot find substantially more in the >300 results from Google Scholar & >92,000 results from Google News. Coverage may not be great for XVideos, but I am sure that someone with time & unfettered access can eventually find plenty. Peaceray (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and recommend the nom review WP:BEFORE next time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stub needs to be expanded, not deleted. Looking through some of the press, it looks like the Indian government even targeted it by name in a censorship run. AlfredRennie (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable + arguments above. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AlfredRennie and a flawed nomination that cites a one event rule which applies to biographies not organizations or websites, and then inexplicably cites another event which shows coverage of more than one event. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just created a history section and added a lot of sources in. I think this is becoming WP:SNOWBALL. Nomader (talk) 04:23, 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 delete. The only keep !vote is a single interview and Google search results without explaining, where significant coverage exists. So Why 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Milito[edit]

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

I can't find why she's notable. She happens to have been married to a mafia member - who isn't notable enough to already have his own page. The article claims the book she wrote to be a bestseller - can't find any evidence of this (references don't conform this, nor own research) Ryanharmany (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no reliable source coverage. Jdcomix (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she was interview by CNN here and mentioned by popular websites link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankind120 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MC Jessy[edit]

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

Non-notable comedian lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Kalorkoti[edit]

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

On the surface, the list of external links might suggest that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, many of the links are just to catalogue entries. There appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources here. There is a small amount of local news coverage, but I haven't been able to find much else. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. On the one hand, the three exhibition reviews in local newspapers meet WP:ARTIST standard 3. On the other hand, the article is plainly WP:PROMOTION driven by an SPA. I don't think Mr Kalorkoti is encyclopedic quite yet. Matt's talk 02:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 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. The consensus is clearly to keep this article as an Institute of Higher Education (per the uncited WP:UNI/AG, presumably). (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Siddhartha Institute of Business Management[edit]

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

This article asserts that Sri Siddhartha Institute of Business Management is affiliated to Tumkur University. A search within that University's website yields only (at page 80 in the pdf file) a mention of this purported Business School offering a Master of Social Work, a degree that would appears to me rather different from degrees that would ordinarily awarded by a business school.

Turning to http://ssibm.edu.in: it appears to me that is a business, albeit one run by a religious organization. This business appears to fail the WP:CORPDEPTH test for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the nom claims the institute does not exist or is fraudulent, per consensus higher education institutes are inherently notable. --Muhandes (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - individual institutes are not considered automatically notable; alternately merge. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a misunderstanding of its status. In India, affiliated colleges are entirely separate institutions, not sub-divisions of the university to which they are affiliated. This is not an institute of Tumkur University as we in the West would understand it; it is an independent college that happens to be affiliated to Tumkur University. Much the same as the colleges of the University of London used to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its existence has been WP:Verified by here and here. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 30 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 in one form or another. It's clear that there is no consensus to delete the nominated pages but also none what to merge where exactly. Fortunately, this is not a question that has to be answered at AFD. So Why 12:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concision[edit]

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

This is basically a matter of WP:NOT#DICT, with a little bit of WP:NOTHOWTO as well. There really isn't anything more that the page can say, beyond the definition and advice about writing style (although essays in Wikipedia space about concise writing are certainly policy-compliant). Pages about more specific concepts involving this word already exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating/bundling the following related page because because the subject is very similar, as are the reasons for deletion:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary This seems like a pretty clear cut case of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". CJK09 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Concision and Succinctness as these cover the same topic. There is some overlap with Plain language, so it's also conceivable to treat these two topics in one place. – Uanfala 21:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that merging both pages into Plain language could be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another possible merge target is Verbosity. It might be the opposite concept, but it's on the same dimension. – Uanfala 22:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we go that way, I think that Plain language would be the better target. Actually, though, I could imagine merging all four pages. In so doing, there could be a genuinely encyclopedic page covering the history of some ideas, instead of a few dictionary entries. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merging with Verbosity will be straightforward, but I would caution against rushing to merge into Plain language unless a decent amount of literature has been consulted and a text can be written that integrates the two topics. – Uanfala 22:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you mean that it would be tricky to merge Verbosity into Plain language, or that it would be tricky to merge any of these pages into it? If the former, it would be simple to leave Verbosity out of it. But if it's the latter, I'm concerned about what the merged page would be called, without creating an Easter egg situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; I like the idea of merging in Succinctness. I would move this to Conciseness, which happens to be (internally) one of the criteria for article titles at Wikipedia:Article titles. The fact that a concept is abstract and difficult to write does not lift it from the category of things that can and should be included in an encyclopedia. The concept of conciseness, beyond the mere dictionary definition, is important in philosophy, law, and literature. It is one reason things like word limits for academic essays and court filings exist at all. bd2412 T 02:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added some materials about teaching students conciseness at various levels of education, and that fact that it is claimed that conciseness is not as highly regarded in certain cultures. bd2412 T 03:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You named Conciseness as the merge target. Currently, that is a redirect to Concision. If we go with a simple merge of Succinctness into it, would the Concision pagename be more appropriate? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Conciseness" appears slightly more common, at least per Google hits. I am, of course, biased due to my work on the conciseness portion of title policy. bd2412 T 17:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been thinking about the ideas about merging. I'm not entirely convinced that doing so would be preferable to deletion, because, for example, when referring to physical size, we treat such words as huge, big, little, and tiny as DAB pages rather than regular pages, and there does not seem to me to be that much that can be said about concision and succinctness as standalone ideas within society, as opposed to as words. (One can address the application to law, for example, in Legal writing, and the application to pagenames in Wikipedia space.) But I'm open to persuasion, and I'm open to merging if that ends up being the consensus. So if there seems to be strong support for merging, I'm quite willing to withdraw this AfD early. However, there is not yet anything remotely like consensus about what would get merged into what, and I would prefer to see an emerging consensus about that before considering whether to end the AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My gut feeling is with bd2412's suggestion for using Conciseness as the article title for the merged Concision and Succinctness. I don't think the AfD should be closed early as it's a tricky topic and it could do with more input. – Uanfala 21:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tryptofish:: big, huge, little, and tiny are adjectives, while concision (or conciseness, or succinctness) is a noun, a thing. A comparable concept, I think, is Size - which was a disambiguation page for a very long time, until I turned it into an article on the concept of size. That, of course, was after my proposal to do this was met with skepticism that an article could be written on a concept as abstract as size. bd2412 T 01:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a good point. It looks to me like my own skepticism here is a minority view. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep by moving succinctness into concision. The reason for keeping? Well, all the idioms, metaphors, word-blends, abbreviations and similes in the English language encouraging conciseness as well as its widespread discussion on various lexicological forums, as well as its opposite (verbiosity) suggests the topic is notable. 92.6.189.188 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Succinctness at Conciseness per Uanfala and BD2412. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Succinctness page is grossly incomplete and incorporates database and programming language. Concision is strictly grammatical writing for documents. Verbose writing (documents) is not poor programming (cryptic). Merging these two is illogical; writing and programming are different animals. Keep concision (which it can be greatly improved to incorporate the KISS method, reference business/administrative writing compared to descriptive writing), and make a separate page for proper programming or database design. Thanks. --DigitalIQ (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)— DigitalIQ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- These issues go beyond my knowledge areas. My impression is that there are separate pages for the programming aspects, and that the proposed merge page should only be about the more general concept, but maybe I'm wrong. Do other editors believe that these are good reasons to change to a different course of action? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the merge page should eliminate programming/database; i.e. not include it with document writing. Cryptic programming gets the job done, but it is highly inefficient. It can make the code run slow with extraneous commands. Cryptic programming is the closest equivalent of verbose document writing, so verbose should not be used to describe cryptic/overbloated code. The two are unique, and should not be merged. This is just my opinion. KISS (Keep it simple, stupid or silly) is more a saying than method. It is taught in business writing classes to eliminate verbose writing (i.e. waste). Descriptive (novel writing to describe characters, and so forth) vs. business/proposal (concise) writing. Cheers. --DigitalIQ (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC) Edit (8/28/17): Maybe Concision can be merged with the page on Academic Writing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_writing --DigitalIQ (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 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. So Why 14:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Deepsi[edit]

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

The page does not meet wikipedia's notibility. It contain information from unlear source Ruhi55 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- The actress has done some notable work, there is also possibility that she will do more notable work in future. The actress has gain notability through her serial MB and become one of the known actress. ABCDE22 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Coverage in the press: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/riya-deepsi-to-enter-bharat-ka-veer-putra-maharana-pratap/ http://www.nettv4u.com/celebrity/hindi/tv-actress/riya-deepsi Same person? https://www.youpak.com/watch?v=16eqA9QzJac Ross-c (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- Just one article from a leading newspaper can't make a person notable. She did few show and none of her role was notable in those show except Gandhari. So the article should be deleted.Ruhi55 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 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 Mount Forest, Ontario. So Why 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Forest United Church[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Insignificant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [was "redirect or merge" --do ncr am 02:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)], probably to Mount Forest, Ontario. The present article includes, without source: "Built in 1873, the Mount Forest United Church is an important part of the local history of Mount Forest, Ontario, and continues to be one of the most historical, and recognizable landmarks of the area." It seems to me to be a decent attempt to assert and explain notability relating to the populated place. However, the church is apparently not listed on any historic registry and its specific historic importance is not adequately explained to justify a separate article now. We should prefer to find Alternatives to deletion and redirecting to the populated place article (which currently mentions the church in just one sentence) is a good one. --do ncr am 19:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is an appropriate solution for churches of only local significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 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. So Why 12:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rich DiSilvio[edit]

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

Bio of a non-notable individual. Article has had lots of puffery added and deleted recently, but there have never been references to reliable sources and my searches find nothing of substance. He exists, he's written a few books and done some music and literature cover art but I'm not seeing anything which makes him pass WP:BIO. Has had a WP:PROD removed. Neiltonks (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I worked my way through the entire history of the article to find nothing the was properly sourced that could support the notability of the subject. There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so it faikls WP:GNG and none of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE are met. This is not an artist who has has won significant critical attention. A Google news search yielded: No results found for "Rich DiSilvio". Mduvekot (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You all seem to be missing a critical point. He is not just an artist (who worked on projects for many music celebrities and even produced a collector plate & mug series for Lincoln Center). Nor is he just an author (who happened to win an international gold award and received acclaim from PhDs for his nonfiction work), since he also conceived of and developed the first interactive software for autism in 1999. In all my searches I have not come across anyone who developed such a product before him. Newsday, a reliable news source, mentioned this release in 1999, and a PhD from Rutgers gave a testimonial to the significance of this new software as well. That the PhD’s testimonial is posted on the software’s website I guess that becomes invalid too. But just because every bit of information of the past or present is not readily online via Google, or like this testimony, is not posted on a totally independent site, does not negate the reality or significance of this achievement, or his artwork on high profile music albums or book covers, or his award-winning literary achievement, which is notable, when competing against thousands of writers from several countries. So I’ll leave it at that. DVed (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable Sources do not need to be on the internet (though, of course, that makes things easier). So, you are free to add references, even if there is not a web site to support it. Robman94 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in article/ A search turns up only a few very minor mentions. Fails diverse reliable sources requirement. One minor source, interestingly, is in "How to Promote Your Music Successfully on the Internet: 2011 Edition". In it, Da Silvio is mentioned as a person who specializes in "visual promotions"... "including web design, cover art and multi-media". Not notable.104.163.140.99 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has been gutted before being hauled to AfD. Assess THIS earlier version, not the one line stub that remains. No opinion about inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any sources that match WP:RS. Nomader (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note here, I reviewed the version that Carrite mentioned here, but unfortunately the sources there don't meet muster either. They're all promos and links to Amazon-- which don't meet WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a low-profile individual. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:05, 6 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) 05:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Straschnov[edit]

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

Not independently notable - mentioned only in relation to Bubble (programming language) and the available coverage doesn't provide a sufficient basis for a biographical article. Rentier (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage. No book coverage. Only 26 Google news hits - and they do not look like in-depth coverage of Straschnov (I admit I ignored hits in Chinese).Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just added some sources to make the article stronger (i'm pretty new to this so learning) Manu239 (talk) 02:01pm, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

— Manu239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not independently notable from the company; significant RS coverage not found. The article is mostly promotional, as in:

"Emmanuel often speaks publicly about Bubble!" Etc.

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, it is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of business people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:07, 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 redirect to Ceres, Fife. Content remains in the history for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fife Folk Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. museums are not inherently notable. 2 gnews hits are in the very local news. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added text and several references relating to the museum and its buildings, but appreciate that these may still fall short of substantial coverage. An alternative to deletion could be merge and redirect to Ceres, Fife? AllyD (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate your efforts regardless of the outcome of this AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merger to Ceres, Fife would seem a very good idea, as there is some useful information here, if there is consensus that the museum is not notable enough to have an article of its own. Dunarc (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ceres, Fife. Despite the heroic efforts of AllyD I don't think the range of references is significant enough to justify a separate article. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Ceres, Fife § The village per WP:ATD-M/WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as proposed, always a good option for attractions tied to populated areas. bd2412 T 03:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a newspaper search for the last 10 years and added more references including some coverage in other Scottish papers (it also has coverage in various guidebooks), as well as referencing most of the facts tagged as needing references. I don't have access to older newspapers but it seems likely more coverage exists. Also, the building is Category A listed which is normally considered strong evidence of notability. A merge wouldn't be terrible (although it might unbalance the target), and the existing sources aren't all the strongest, but I think considering all these points, it meets guidelines for a keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Museums are inherently notable, or at least in practice we keep them, because they are public attractions and coverage about them in reputable travel guides exists and so does other coverage. Articles on obscure private museums not open to the public may not be needed, but that's not this. wp:BEFORE not performed? --do ncr am 04:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museums are not inherently notable. listing in travel guides is hardly a case for notability especially when attractions often ask to be included in travel guides. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unpleasant, but LibStar is committed to wp:BLUDGEONing, in particular they are committed to commenting upon every comment/vote that I make. To continue quoting from the poem:

He stays so close beside me, he's a coward you can see;

I'd think shame to stick to nursie as that shadow sticks to me!

--do ncr am 15:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hardly. it's a clear refute of your clearly erroneous claim that museums are inherently notable. you do your AfD argument a disservice by deliberately lying. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While public museums may not be "inherently" notable, as claimed above, I would say they are generally notable except where reliable sources don't exist. This isn't the case here; the article is supported by multiple non-trivial sources. The Scotsman, Herald and Courier are all respected regional broadsheet newspapers. Also, as well as the museum, the building itself is likely to be considered notable on account of its listed status, and again there are sources to support this, such as Historic Scotland. While its notability could legitimately be called into question based on the state of the article when the nomination was made, I think it is now much more clearly established. Jellyman (talk) 08:58, 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjuman-e-Tarraqui-e-Khowar[edit]

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

No such coverage in WP:RS. Seems to clearly fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 12:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the primary organization for promotion of Khowar language, active in publishing for decades, several book mentions. "...September 1990 the 2nd lnternational Hindu Kush I Cultural Conference was held in Chitral under the auspices of the Anjuman-e-Taraqqi Khowar Chitral. Renowned scholars from U.K., U.S.A., ltaly, Norway, Denmark, West Germany...", "...there is an active group of indigenous writers and local historians associated with the Anjuman-e-Taraqqi Khowar, several of whom delivered papers in the Khowar language of Chitral.", "The second International Hindukush Cultural Conference was held at Chitral in 1990 and it was organised entirely by the local efforts of the Anjuman-i-Taraqqi-i- Khowar. The conference was attended by over fifty scholars including historians", "3rd International Hindukush Cultural Conference: August 26th to 30th, 1995 at Chitral (Hosted by Anjuman-e-Taraqqi Khowar, Chitral)." --Soman (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Soman. See: DAWN, DAWN, ET, The News & this. Do you even perform WP:Before nominating? - Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:51, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Herzenberg[edit]

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

Biography of an academic and politician, whose most substantive claim of notability is that his election to a smalltown city council in 1987 made him the first openly gay elected official in his state. We do not, however, automatically accept everybody as notable who can merely claim to have been the first member of an underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable political office -- it would count for something if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG off the media coverage he received for the fact, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to be reliably sourced. Of the three sources being cited here, however, one is an unpublished private e-mail from his sister and the other two are his contributor profiles in the back matter of an academic journal. And while there's a linkfarm of other "sources" present in the external links section, most of those are blogs rather than reliable sources -- the only one that even starts to build a case for GNG is an obituary in the local newspaper. But it's a deadlink, and obituaries of local figures would be routinely expected to exist in the local newspaper, so that source doesn't make him pass GNG all by itself. All of which means there just isn't enough valid sourcing here to make him notable. (Also there's a probable conflict of interest here, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of one of Herzenberg's council colleagues.) Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG; reads like resume. Maybe refund to article creator for a re-do.Quis separabit? 15:14, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Mironova[edit]

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

This is an unsourced biography of a ballet teacher that fails WP:BIO. Its editing history shows there have been a number of SPAs involved in editing it, and a sister article (Victoria International Ballet Academy) that was redirected to this one in March 2014. This appears to be a vanity article, or one set up to promote the ballet academy. Note that Category:Vaganova method teachers should also be deleted, as this article is the only entry in that category. Mind matrix 14:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have notified Vladimirdemine (talk · contribs) and Canadian Ballet Lover (talk · contribs), the two most prominent SPA editors of that article, though neither has edited since 2013. Mind matrix 15:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mind matrix 15:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Mind matrix 15:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 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) 19:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of town council members of Chapel Hill, North Carolina[edit]

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

As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alderpersons of Carrboro, North Carolina, comprehensive historical lists of town or city councillors in individual cities simply aren't a thing we do on here. A person wouldn't pass WP:NPOL for this role in and of itself, so it's mostly a list of non-notable people because normally the only way a person would actually have an article to link to is if they went on to hold office at the state or federal levels. And even places like New York City, where the city councillors are considered to pass NPOL because the city is so large and internationally prominent, still don't actually have lists like this. No prejudice against creation of an article about the city council itself, if one can be substanced and sourced, but a list of the past city councillors all the way back to the 1800s just isn't a thing we need. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the individuals don't pass WP:NPOL in their own right, then their notability cannot inherited either from these types of list articles. Ajf773 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. How does this pass WP:LIST? Bearian (talk) 02:01, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Billgard[edit]

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

Fails General Notability and Reliable sources Zazzysa (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The awards have flashy titles, but with out any WP:RS, delete if not speedy delete A7 — IVORK _Discuss 14:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And did a quick search, none of the "awards" have turned up any relevant results. Are people starting to make up whatever achievements that sound flashy? -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely unsourced, doing a quick search and unable to find anything in relevance. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete sourceless bio of a living person, actually worse since the person is under age 18 (under age 13, making the violations of the privacy of a minor worse). No clear evidence that this is not a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 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. Consensus is for deletion per this company not meeting Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kostoulas[edit]

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

fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The sources are simply directory listing or a bio for a person that works for another recycling company that lists his previous work for Kostoulas. Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. A purely promotional article, devoid of any reliable third-party sources. I had been adding COI and Notability tags, but were constantly removed by Kostoulas' promoters. Some IPs and users are promoting Kostoulas company in Greek WP, English WP, and Commons (cf. user's W220greece global contributions, and his/her Greek public logs). There were several attempts to create a Greek article on Kostoulas, but all articles were eventually deleted for lacking notability; cf. Κωστούλας, Κωστούλας ΑΕΒΕ, and Kostoulas Recycling (3 times!). →34kor34 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The page was created with the purpose of this particular historical company entering the wikipedia. Unfortunately for some reason. Instead of helping to correct the page, I get from 1-2 users of wikipedia requests to delete the page. I wish the page wont be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.220.24 (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2017(UTC)— 94.66.220.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The reason that the page is being regularly deleted is that it doesn't meet the criteria. Not all companies are considered notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a directory of every company that exists. If you want the page to stay then read the notability criteria in WP:ORG and try and find the sources to prove that it meets these criteria. I looked and couldn't find them. Domdeparis (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I and other users have suspected is proved to be true: user W220greece has been using multiple IPs (cf. contib. of 94.66.220.39, obviously the same person behind 94.66.220.24)/accounts to promote Kostoulas in en-WP and el-WP, and for reverting other users placing tags (vandalism) as well. →34kor34 (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, as said before, the lack of reliable sources and notability sinks it. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 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. So Why 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quilly (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards or charted songs. Trivial mention in online sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability and doesn't pass music. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I should note I had created the article over a year ago, although I haven't made any edits in the past year. Subject meets WP:GNG, and was recently on Hot 97, one of the leading hiphop radio stations [13]; He has also been on Power 99's "Cosmic Kev Show" several times over the years [14]. His online print coverage may be considered 'trivial' but his coverage on radio media (aforementioned) is notable and satisfies points #11 and #12 of WP:MUSICBIO. –DA1 (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify listed his track "Real One" among the most popular Philadelphia rap songs as reported by Patch Media on July 2015 [15]. The song continues to be played on several stations across the country, based on Mediabase charts [16], pertaining to point #11 of WP:MUSICBIO. The song was also featured on the score to the 2015 film Brotherly Love (citation: film credits) [17]. –DA1 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -#11 and #12 require significant national play. Nothing shows that to be the case.--Rpclod (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: What about the other references? The track "Real Ones" came out in 2015, and is still listed in playlists for a number of radio stations. Its rotation 2 years earlier was much more significant. Nontheless, Hot 97 is a notable source. XXL [18] and HotNewHipHop [19] have covered him as well. I don't see how that does not satisfy point #1. None of these are self-published, and notable sources (with their own Wikipedia articles to boot). –DA1 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Hot 97 nor HotNewHipHop qualify as reliable sources. XXL is very irregularly published and its editorial oversight is questionable. Even if it is deemed reliable, notability would depend on the articles' content. Insert links to the XXL articles as references in the Wikipedia article if you think the XXL articles support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: Why are we conflating Reliablity with WP:Notability? The former pertains to claims being made. The latter is about whether something is notable for an article. If Quilly was on Hot 97, and we can see his video/audio on it, how is its reliability in dispute? Same for the other outlets; no unverifiable claims are being made. Only the question of whether subject is notable. The sources in question are simply coverage of his music. –DA1 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source must be reliable before it provides any indication of notability. Here the sources referenced are not reliable and hence no notability is supported.--Rpclod (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: So which Hip hop outlets are considered reliable? There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia citing these alleged unreliable outlets. Including their reviews. And I really don't understand on which basis you're saying Hot 97 cannot be used as a source — to cite an appearance on Hot 97. DA1 (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Identifying reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: According to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, AllHipHop and XXL are listed as recommended sources. –DA1 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Note that biographies of living persons are held to a higher standard than most other articles. Assuming that these qualify as "high quality" sources, verifiable cites to significant coverage in those sources is still required.--Rpclod (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more discussion on the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MassiveYR ♠ 12:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable rapper. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:40, 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 no consensus. So Why 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Lloyd-Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Lack of reliable sources that are significant and independent of the topic. Fails WP:GNG - TheMagnificentist 06:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Article fits notability criteria under creative professionals item 3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Article references multiple reliable sources including Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. DarkyT (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkyT: Meeting a subject-specific guideline criteria does not necessarily mean the article must be kept. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The SMH and ABC sources are not significant, they're about an event with trivial mentions of Jake Lloyd-Jones. - TheMagnificentist 11:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Does not strictly meet sufficient WP:NEXIST for GNG. However, does have some somewhat important contributions to social comment and societal education, and is I believe sufficiently interesting to a wide range of people to have an encyclopedic entry. This is one case where GNG perhaps should be relaxed a little. The Awards section should be trimmed/removed to the awards directly relevant to the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure I properly understand what the issue is with this article User:TheMagnificentist? The guy is notable enough that we learned about his work at university so what's the basis for saying he's not notable enough? Subject of the article has created or co-created quite a few documentaries and other TV programs including some very notable ones like The Chaser which is very famous here in Australia. The references you say are just trivial mentions prove that the information in the article is true so I don't really understand the problem? The Notability guidelines say "People can be notable if they meet any of the following guidelines. Failure to meet these standards is not proof that a subject should not be included." However this does meet the guidelines anyway. Item 3 says in full "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie" Well reference 4 proves a feature length documentary was made about his work. Hope that will be enough for you. DarkyT (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:NB: I've found two radio programs which refer to using this wikipedia article in their research about this film maker so it is of interest to people I think Skruins and Co Breakfast Show and The Andy Social Podcast at omny.fm

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time for the road
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:32, 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 redirect to BMC Software. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMC Control-M[edit]

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

The content of the page is outdated and inaccurate, the external links and references are outdated and not working, and the concept itself is not significant enough to warrant an article. Wattssw (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:although subject may be important but The content of the page is outdated of external links and referencesMr.ref (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are short news in InfoWorld and Computerworld magazines, but I can´t find more substantial coverage. Hard to judge, price of this application was in 10.000s USD... it must have been notable for someone (to pay such price). Current parent company has its Wikipedia article, maybe few words about Control-M there and cheap redirect would be the best solution. Pavlor (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent company. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent, merge anything useful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 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. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Shen-Tien Chi[edit]

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

This individual does not meet notability requirements as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (people). The one reference, Beijing Review, is routine coverage - there is insufficient significant coverage to establish notability. This page is essentially unchanged from the draft Draft:Luke Shen-Tien Chi, which was turned down several times at Articles for Creation. Creation of the article after the draft was declined is a subversion of the AFC process. There is a likely COI here as well, as the article creator is a single-purpose account promoting this individual and his work. See also the related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spokenology: You and Me. Slideshow Bob (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is quite easy when someone quickly look at one article, and defined to delete it. I truly believe Wikipedia is not like that. I think Wikipedia look at the person as a whole being. If we really want to proof is someone notability. The guidelines can never fulfill. In what we have here today a very special case. That we Wikipedia can not truly place, Luke Shen-Tien Chi in to the form. Because he did something that is not in the norm of our present time. I sincerely hope that we all can come and show some love in this place. To protect the progress creation of this moving world. :] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike7682 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per nominator, Only created to try and make person and ideas notable. Should be notable before Wikipedia article created, not try to gain notoriety by creating Wikipedia article. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete not complicated; could have been speedied but this is stronger. recommend salting. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is Spokenology? If his claim to fame is this, then it should have its own Wikipedia page. Mike7682 I would concentrate on that area first, build a full-page for Spokenology in your sandbox, when you think you are done, then please submit for review. In time, if Spokenology has a lot of media sources then possibly Luke Shen-Tien Chi will by default as the creator of it.Sgerbic (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was pinged by the page's creator to weigh in on this and I have to agree that the subject fails WP:BLP. I notice the page's OP also created a page for a text book about Spokenology written by the subject of this article. Seem like WP:PROMO to me, especially considering Spokenology does not already have an established WP page. Comatmebro (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination: no sources, Google search here asks if I mean "splenology," then finds no hits except to blogs. This still might turn into a worthy topic, but it needs to be explained and referenced just what Spokenology is.ch (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you misspelled the word Spokenology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.5.225 (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: It looks like the source of the nobility has been deleted. That source should be fix and display in the right way for article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.169.116.26 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: No need to remove article. Just fix the problems! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.119.13.150 (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: His Chinese news shows nobility. Deleting some of his news information is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.100.4.190 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: By his name, he is know for his work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.224.24.88 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: China's spokenologist, We love U! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.119.77.150 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays:Just shows how people outside asia dont look at news! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.167.136.91 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: I try to fix some parts of the article. But it still needs more work. The guy is the real deal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.5.225 (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Creator Mike7682 has been blocked, and the multiple IPs voting "stays" are likely the same user evading the block. -Zanhe (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone clear my message here. I made some edits. Just salting some pennies.

Delete per my comments on the original draft. Vaguely promotional article about a non-notable person promoting a non-notable neologism. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: If wiki is free. Why editors feels like in prison? No wonder I drop out long time ago.

Do Not Remove: Show some respected for others work!

Keeper': This editor looks like a fighter! Press on!

Keep': I have never see any page got so much harassment before. Give this edit justice!

Stays:I totally agree.

Keep' I couldn't believe how they treat editor very disgraceful here.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spokenology: You and Me[edit]

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

This book does not meet notability requirements as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Only one of the 'Notes' is independent and most of the 'References' are not about the book itself. This page is essentially unchanged from the draft Draft:Spokenology: You and Me, which was turned down at Articles for Creation. Creation of the article after the draft was declined is a subversion of the AFC process. There is a likely COI here as well, as the article creator is a single-purpose account promoting one individual and his work. See also the related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Shen-Tien Chi. Slideshow Bob (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is quite easy when someone quickly look at one article, and defined to delete it. I truly believe Wikipedia is not like that. I think Wikipedia look at the person as a whole being. If we really want to proof is someone notability. The guidelines can never fulfill. In what we have here today a very special case. That we Wikipedia can not truly place, Luke Shen-Tien Chi in to the form. Because he did something that is not in the norm of our present time. I sincerely hope that we all can come and show some love in this place. To protect the progress creation of this moving world. :] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike7682 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per nominator, Only created to try and make idea and person notable. Should be notable before Wikipedia article created, not try to gain notoriety by creating Wikipedia article. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OP's justification for keeping this page was copy/pasted from Luke Shen-Tien Chi deletion discussion, or vise versa. Seems like a WP:PROMO push for a non-notable subject. Comatmebro (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Stays: The source part needs fix for article. No need to delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.169.116.26 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

'Stays: Rejection would clearly be a mistake. Just fix the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.119.13.150 (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

'Stays: Not necessary for deletion. The search information on him is true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.100.4.190 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

'Stays: He is quite well known by his work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.224.24.88 (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Stays: China's spokenologist, We love U! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.119.77.150 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: No no. Remove this article would be a great lost for wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.5.138 (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get more "stays" with exclamation points! Timmyshin (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable book. Creator Mike7682 has been blocked, and the multiple IPs voting "stays" are likely the same user evading the block. -Zanhe (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatz up? I thought i place note here.

Delete - Vaguely promotional article about a book that has not adequately been covered in reliable sources. This should have stayed at WP:AfC, at the very least. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: I wonder where all the good editors go. Not here. Stop sweating him!

Do Not Remove: Show some respected for others work!

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

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

The result was G11'd. by Alex Shih ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reuven Mosheev[edit]

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

I have done "Due diligence" - in Wikipedia terms, WP:BEFORE - about this article, and I have found nothing that would persuade me that Mr Mosheevmeets the WP:ANYBIO test. With respect to VK (social networking) it would appear to me that Mr Mosheev's links appear tenuous at best. Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Self promotional fluff piece.PRehse (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been Speedy Delete (CSD A7), but since an AfD has started, it must now sit for a week waiting for the AfD to close. Loopy30 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:BIO - (at least the AFD will allow Speedy G4 if it is recreated) - Arjayay (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verified claim of significance for A7 or rs coverage fails WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Page has now been deleted by Alex Shih (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) on 05:58, 3 September 2017. Loopy30 (talk) 14:18, 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) 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tribetoy[edit]

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

Pretty much no references that would fulfill WP:NCORP. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't appear to be any depth of coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) to establish notability and justify a Wikipedia article. Slideshow Bob (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP/CORPDEPTH per nom. The only sources I find are casual mentions in relation to their product, the video game Chu's Dynasty. Note that both articles were created by "Trueping". Tara Rueping is listed as a key person on the corp article. -- ferret (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP, no indications of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:26, 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) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chu's Dynasty[edit]

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

A search could not turn up any particularly significant refs to make it pass WP:GNG. The IndieGames.com article of a paragraph is the biggest mention there is, which is still pretty small, and there are no reviews (Destructoid one is a community blog not the actual site). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- My search of sources indicated the same. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Addicting Sheep Game[edit]

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

Article was PROD'd but removed, yet references added are still insufficient to meet WP:GNG and it seems to not have met notability ever since it was created 6 years ago. A search showed no significant refs beyond the one single blog article from Microsoft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred White (musician)[edit]

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

No demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of his band Earth, Wind & Fire. The existing sources on the article are about the band but with trivial mentions of him. As an individual musician, he fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - TheMagnificentist 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 18:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 18:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 18:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No individual notability established. May redirect to EWF article as alternative to deletion. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG in his own right. Definitely notable as a member of the group, so a redirect to their page would be okay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page meets WP:NMG, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NM specifically:Section 1.of (under Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself) and passes WP:GNG

With a review of internet searches and independent music sources, the data clearly indicates that Fred White was a sought after studio and touring musician prior to joining EWF; from Chicago to MoWest (Motown), but you have to do the due diligence to properly document this.

Interestingly enough, Fred White is the only member of the 'Classic 9' line-up that deletion and or redirection is trying to be established. That's a tad bit bizarre.

We can all see that no one has updated this page in several years but thankfully, it is currently being updated on Wiki as well as the Allmusic.com and Artist Direct websites to properly reflect the true and complete documented musical history of this artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntielandra (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work done by Auntielandra, plus a book search name checks him all over the place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article was expanded after being nominated for deletion, which included the addition of more sources to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that we know he was a prolific session musician. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 09:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see multiple sources covering him in detail. He may be mentioned all over the place but that's not enough. Also it's misleading to say he received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2016, that award was given to Earth, Wind & Fire. The other claim to fame, that he received "a gold record as a 16 year old for his work with Donny Hathaway on his Live album" doesn't appear to be mentioned in the source given.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:16, 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) 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Hudson[edit]

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

Zero coverage from secondary sources or evidence of notability. Blackguard 07:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish any notability, also I had previously placed a speedy delete tag on this article User:RockingSummer removed it without providing a reason. MassiveYR ♠ 08:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability, no secondary sources, maybe others can come up with more sources? --ClrView (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a short piece by The Sun[20], but that's all I found while trying to source a previous incarnation of this article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 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. If anyone needs the text from this article to merge something, please leave me a message. So Why 14:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia and health[edit]

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

This entire article is a synth. None of the references seem to contain any information regarding the sexual transmission of these infections being transmitted to humans to animals or animals to humans by any type of sexual contact. Perhaps a merge with Zoonosis may be appropriate. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you decide to do, try to retain the information, a fair bit of which comes from medical studies. I don't object to a merge with zoonosis. The information offers a useful public service by collecting data from a variety of sources. Ratel (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the exact same information is contained in the Zoonosis article. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to check myself, Barbara, so I leave it in your capable hands. That table took a lot of work .... can it be saved? Ratel (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that I do a 'merge' without consensus or discussion? The last time I tried that it turned out poorly and the article I tried to merge was retained with no references at all to support its content. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I just think you won't get a lot of comments here is all. Not sure what the procedure is if few comments come in. Ratel (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I will do if consensus doesn't happen here. I will be bold, and in good faith I will try to work on the article to improve it to the point where it stands on its own with good referencing. I will go over every reference that appears in the article. If sex with animals is not covered in the source I will delete the reference and its contents. So far, I have not found any reference that describes sex with animals in this article. There are less than 30 watchers of this page which may explain the lack of participation here. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article contains several references to studies that describe the practice, such as PMID 12091035, PMID 1083973, PMID 4737141, (the lack of abstracts simply means you have to do a bit of footwork to get the text), so I'm not sure why you claim that you have not found any appropriate reference in the article. In addition, a good editor woould try to work in the following refs: PMID 22023719, PMID 19733331, PMID 28763709. More details can be found on page 267 of Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices [21] where you'll find a much of the article's content confirmed, namely that numerous zoonoses are transmitted by zoophilia practices. If you do not feel up to this task, perhaps leave it to other editors who want to build the encyclopedia. Ratel (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references you have found are not about diseases. These few, and dated publications do not meet the referencing guidelines for Project Medicine WP:MEDRS which requires high-quality medical references for infections and injuries. For example, see Feline zoonosis which I wrote. The article is about infections you can get from cats. Well-cited and up-to-date. The references you suggest as appropriate are about injuries. One of the articles uses the term bestiality. Another article states you can't get penis cancer from having sex with an animal. Guess I'm not a good editor...admittedly I am slightly familiar with abstracts. All those references listed above could be used in Zoophilia. But I can't find any information about how sexual activity between a person and an animal results in infections being transmitted between them. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the title is Zoophilia and Health. Health encompasses injuries. If you're going to require MEDRS review studies, there is no data, which is not surprising. Ratel (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following your logic, should we have an article entitled Metal sticks and health based on this? We could have pretty much anything and health, there are always articles to be found about anything that affects health. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When you strip out the list of diseases that could be contracted, without significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrating how each one is notably a problem in zoophilic situations, you're left with a very short article that belongs as a section in Zoophilia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise solution would be to use a quote from the section on zoophilia-zoonoses from page 267 of Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices [22] listing the zoonoses transmitted by zoophilia, and insert that into Zoophilia. IOW, much of the data from this article could be usefully shortened and transferred into Zoophilia. As I remember, it was only moved to a separate article to combat vandalism, namely because when it was in Zoophilia is was repeatedly removed by IP editors who believed that zoophilia simply cannot result in disease. Ratel (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merging the little bit to that is supported by proper refs to zoophilia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. How has this existed since 2006? This has to be one of the longest-running pieces of WP:SYN mashups in Wikipedia history. There is nothing of value here that is not covered elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theda Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable upcoming film. It looks like it is WP:TOOSOON to write an article about it. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Advertisement with an odd edit history largely unrelated to the film. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If it really releases in three days, there should be coverage by now. Relisting to avoid deleting just to have it recreated within a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @SoWhy: a single Google search about this topic showed me a lot of coverage but by different name "Paisa Vasool". [23] I learnt that Theda Singh is a character of the film, so I added a reliable source to prevent it from deletion but I got to know that this is a duplicate article please see Paisa_Vasool_(2017_film) Anoptimistix (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anoptimistix: Then wouldn't it make sense to redirect this article to Paisa Vasool (2017 film)? Regards So Why 13:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now (not soft delete). The article can be created again if the film becomes notable enough. It is WP:TOOSOON now, as it fails WP:SIGCOV. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @SoWhy: No sir the meaning for "Paisa Vasool" in the Hindi language means "value for money", whereas Theda Singh is a Punjabi male human name. Both are different, Redirect would be inappropriate, Regards Anoptimistix (talk) 14:43, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Çağıl Uyar[edit]

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

Contested prod, fails WP:NHOCKEY Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in a very long string of articles about NN Turkish hockey players, and at least we've put to rest the inane notion that they possibly satisfy any element of NHOCKEY, which they do not. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this player, and definitely does not meet NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This player fails all of the criteria needed for an article to exist about them. Deadman137 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wofai Egu Ewa[edit]

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

promotional article on a subject who fails to meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:33, 11 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\ 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She won online comedian of the year at a national comedy awards. Ross-c (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c:, how does winning a non-notable award meet GNG? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz: Being covered in multiple non-trivial independent sources, as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(awards) e.g. http://www.pulse.ng/events/pulse-news-all-the-fun-and-laughter-from-naija-fm-comedy-jam-awards-id3247218.html http://allure.vanguardngr.com/tag/naija-fm-comedy-awards/ https://nollywoodobserver.com/2016/10/10/jenifas-diary-wins-best-sitcom-at-naija-fm-comedy-awards-2016/ http://www.latestnigeriannews.com/news/863921/bovi-ay-akpororo-wale-adenuga-all-the-winners-from-the-2014-naija-fm-comedy-awar.html Ross-c (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to say nothing of note. This is the website she did an interview with, this is the primary school she went to, this is the magic show she appeared in... In order for her to meet notability guidelines she has to have some renown and independent coverage of whatever impact she has had in her given field. How widely is her work reported and reviewed, discussed, critiqued or lauded? This tells us nothing at all. Pupsbunch (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems promotion and doesn't has a lot of content. Doesn't meet GNG. Only if we have more good and notable references we could keep the article.--ClrView (talk) 10:28, 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) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top Dog Theatre[edit]

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

First AfD closed as no consensus in 2010. Frankly I think the original nom was correct - this fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. There is coverage, but it is strictly routine local coverage from Christchurch. Nothing indicating that it has garnered "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", per WP:N. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NORG. Local coverage only. No independent sources presented during the last AfD (seven years ago) and the article looks more like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic entry. Ajf773 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read The Press daily and this group doesn't appear to get attention by the local newspaper. I follow the arts scene (mostly music, though, but occasionally theatre) and Top Dog Theatre doesn't ring a bell. I am aware of the Summer Shakespeare plays, but not that it's a production by this group. So if, as an interested local, I'm not aware of them, then a case for WP:GNG is hard to make. Schwede 66 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of anything except routine "things to do" coverage in a local paper, which says very little about the subject of the article. --RL0919 (talk) 10:31, 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 speedy Delete. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 06:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaikki kissat[edit]

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

Incomprehensible. Google search cannot find a single English hit on this phrase. (Most of the retrievals are in Finnish.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per speedy deletion criterion A7. Article contains no assertion of significance. CJK09 (talk) 03:40, 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotypical Disorder[edit]

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

Originally tagged as G3 and A11. This still appears to have been invented by the author, and is at best original research and at worst a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent it, someone else did. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309001703 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wflr34&div=28&id=&page= http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414003327 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.1508/full The list goes on and on. We just have a better understanding of how the brain works now and the links to genetics. I'm sure it will be published in the next DSM in 20 years or whenever they get around to rolling out the old printing press, but this is the 21st century and we have computers which obsoletes that technology. I won't accept deletion without a suitable redirect to another article with the same basic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whytehorse1413 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm no psychologist, but based on at least the abstracts of the papers linked (only one of which even uses the word "neurotypical", unless I missed something, and none of which use this term, arguing against the claim that "someone else [invented it]"), I'm thinking this is a hoax. It does also sound a little bit along the lines of the rather silly political trope of "[insert name of the side of politics you don't subscribe to] don't understand common sense, so they must be psychologically affected". Criteria 4, 6 and 8 in the article point in this direction, although that may just be me having read too much political science today. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit like someone creating an article Hearing disorder that states the condition is characterised by a lack of deafness and an inability to understand sign language.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3, tag was removed by article creator. --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neurotypical. While I think the contents of the current article need to be significantly improved, it's not a hoax. I could see the usage of the exact term "Neurotypical disorder" in Sussex.ac.uk accepted research (Yuill, N., et al, 2015).^{Journal of Assistive Technologies} The exact term can also be seen in various books and research papers: [24][25][26][27]. dr.library.brocku.ca's digital library describes the exact term "Neurotypical disorder" as "a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity." Having said that, while the term is not a hoax, it can easily be accommodated in the Neurotypical article, which already has a skeletal paragraph on this issue. Lourdes 07:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My computer's up to no good, so I can't read/search everything you've cited. That said, Yuill's article, while it does use the term, it's used in what seems to be the context of a thought-experiment where someone on the autism spectrum is describing how a neurotypical person would be described if autism-spectrum conditions were the "standard" by which others were measured. The last source says precisely what you've stated, but the rest of the context there reads "The above statement is taken from a website developed by people on the autism spectrum. It attempts to provide a humorous account of the belief that autism is a disease by seeking to establish the argument as irrational." The "skeletal paragraph" in the artcle you're suggesting as a redirect target is simply a rehash of the symptoms of the "disorder" as quoted in this article. If it's not a hoax, it's certainly something being taken significantly more seriously than it is intended to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a parody or joke. I have also remove similar text from Neurotypical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sann Satt Naing[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 08:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 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. No prejudice against creation of a redirect if anyone thinks that would be useful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbyshire[edit]

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

WP:DEL7. Unable to find any sources to support content of page. "Sorby" and "shire" are mentioned together here: Gorton, John (1833). "SORBIE or SORBY, shire of Wigtown S.". A Topographical Dictionary of Great Britain and Ireland: Compiled from Local Information, and the Most Recent and Official Authorities. London: Chapman and Hall. p. 428. Retrieved 2017-08-27.; however, the S. indicates the location is in Scotland (as do other towns mentioned as being within this area). I was unable to find anything to support Sorbyshire being a former Shire in what is now Yorkshire (England). A natural history society in Yorkshire uses the name "Sorbyshire", but take their name from Henry Clifton Sorby. DferDaisy (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly made up. I could find no use of the word "Sorbyshire" in this context - everything I found was either a Wikipedia mirror (or blatant copying from Wikipedia), an OCR error, or the alternate meaning of "Sorbyshire" used by the natural history society in Yorkshire. CJK09 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a copy of Sowerbyshire but this spelling is not a useful redirect.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sowerby, West Yorkshire#History. Confusion is clarified by The Northern Danelaw: Its Social Structure, c.800-1100, D.M. Hadley, Bloomsbury, 2001. Sowerby was not a shire; it was a scir, understood as a poorly understood unit of territorial organization under the northern Danelaw that had ceased to have any formal administrative meaning by the time of the Domesday Book but that was still in limited use in the early medieval period as a term describing an estate. When Sowerbyshire, an estate, appears in history it is as part of the manor of Wakefield.[28]. This article was probably honestly created, but I think it is more efficiently redirected and merged to Sowerby.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better to redirect term than delete since "Sorbyshire" is sometimes used.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that Sowerbyshire be similarly redirected to Sowerby, West Yorkshire#History because there is no indication that it was ever "a small shire" in the sense of shire as a political unit, but, rather, was some sort of populated place, estate, or strategic location and valuable estate at the time of the Norman Conquest but with so little historical documentation in the pre-Norman period as to make a separate article making the sort of claims this article does misleading.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Çağla Baktıroğlu[edit]

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that, because NHOCKEY does not mention any women's ice hockey leagues, that women who play professional ice hockey in women's leagues cannot be considered notable under NHOCKEY? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, yes, indeed, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. The reason that NHOCKEY accords no presumptive notability to women's leagues (save for women playing in the Olympics) has been exhaustively discussed on the talk pages of WP:NHOCKEY/LA, WP:NSPORTS and the hockey WikiProject, but they simply boil down to that nowhere in the world does women's hockey receive a level of coverage sufficient to presumptively declare every player in the league notable. Given that this is a standard issue throughout women's team sport -- the WNBA is the only women's team sport league in the world that is credited with presumptive notability -- this should be no great surprise. Ravenswing 11:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. This looks like it might be a start (though I would need to see more in order to be happy GNG is met) but I can't get the page to load. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:54, 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) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huriye Yeliz Yüksel[edit]

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Ravenswing 11:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wider GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 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) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refika Yılmaz[edit]

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Ravenswing 11:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. This appears to be a relatively lengthy interview with the player which goes some way towards GNG, but I would need to see more than a single source providing significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 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) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betül Tayğar[edit]

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Ravenswing 11:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs. It may not be write that female tennis starts, and male football, hockey, basketball and many other sports starts receive more coverage than players of the opposite sex in the same sport, but it is the truth, and sports notability is meant to reflect real coverage in sources, not some desire for equity in our work. Wikipedia is meant to collect worthwhile knowledge on reality, not to be a platform to push social change or to advocate for a certain point of view. It is not the format to try an propel to stardom sports figures who lack significant coverage in the media.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 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) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burcu Turanal[edit]

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Ravenswing 11:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comes no where close to meeting the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:52, 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) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elif Ulaş[edit]

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Likewise, the subject fails NSKATE, which does not provide presumptive notability to juniors-level skaters. Ravenswing 11:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if editos want to create articles on female hockey players who fail guidelines, they need to change the guidelines. However since the guidelines at present reflect general notability in reliable publications which in turn reflects actual interest in the sport involved, what really needs to change is interest and sourcing, both of which need to be changed by actions off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for social change or to right perceived wrongs, it is meant to reflect the actual reliable sources on topcis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah. It sucks, for instance, that the likes of Khloe Kardashian gets about twenty times the press attention of every single Nobel Prize winner last year combined, but society didn't ask my permission or advice concerning about what they're allowed to care. Ravenswing 09:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fulya Yurt[edit]

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Nor does the subject meet the criteria of NGOLF. Ravenswing 11:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Her golf career is so minor as to obviously fail WP:NGOLF and at such a low level that it is inconceivable sufficient coverage could exist to satisfy GNG as a golfer. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if people want another league to give default notability, they should seek to change the notability guidelines for hockey players, not ignore them. Is it just me or does hockey have a high rate of the creation of articles on non-notable players? This may indicate that our guidelines on other sports need to be tightened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A lot of it comes from two factors. We had an editor who was prolific, obsessed with his article creation count, and hell bent on defying the criteria and consensus to create as many articles as he wanted; it took a community ban to shut him down at the last. The second was a bad mistake I made when I originally drafted NHOCKEY; I presumed good faith on the part of hockey article creators, that they'd exercise good sense in realizing what the criteria meant, that they'd agree to be governed by consensus in case of disputes, and that they wouldn't bring their own shibboleths and hobby horses to the process, and therefore I didn't need to go to the point I did at the last and spell out each and every league at each and every level. That was badly naive of me, and a great deal of work and angst among a great many editors over the years has been the result, for which I am deeply sorry. Ravenswing 17:57, 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.