Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 August	30 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. Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout Pakistan[edit]

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

I could not find any coverage of this show whatsoever, past or present. This is likely a WP:HOAX. Mar4d (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. No coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:41, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trap City[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All news sources that mention this channel do not discuss it in-depth. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and suffers from a lack of sourcing. Most sources cited are attributed to either user-generated content or websites that do not meet Wikipedia's source criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails General NotabilityZazzysa (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom Italia Tower (Naples)[edit]

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

I think the article doesn't meet notability standards. Winuserunlimited (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "It is currently the second tallest skyscraper in Italy". I'm going to begin calling out your noms as WP:BADFAITH at this point; improve them immediately or face a block. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, bad-faith nomination from a block-evading vandal who is now blocked. --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Builders[edit]

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

Promotional uncited article. No clear demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 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. Sandstein 09:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karnan (malayalam)[edit]

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

A translation of a book for which we don't have an article on the book in its original language. No evidence found for the claimed award. Not notable enough. Edwardx (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the book listed in worldcat.com ISBN 9788171304868 and you can find the original's details (Mrityunjay) in the page sivaji savant Regarding the award there is no much details available on iternet .You can find it in the Kendra sahitya akademy's official website (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sort of surprised that "Mrutyunjaya" doesnt have an article, in which case this should have been a redirect. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 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. Sandstein 21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-platform IT[edit]

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

Declined prod. Not a common term; I believe it's being promoted by Compuware. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually use and done network setup for a hybrid cloud solution at work. And I cannot understand how "Through two-platform IT, savings are easily diverted as investments in value-driving innovation, rather than used for the higher incremental costs of an x86 environment, such as purchasing a new server rack to house a new set of applications." is any different from a standard IaaS solution, indeed I think this whole article fails WP:PROMO as it exists purely to promote the definition of "two-platform IT" a product of CompuWare. Nothing lost by deletion. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:40, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Verne (band)[edit]

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

No sources in the article, not seeing any reliable sources when I did a quick Google search. Appears to be a fairly non-notable band. Andise1 (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this company is not notable at all for wikipedia and there aren't any valid references about it on google and I think you should put speedy deletion tag for that Mr.ref (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epitonic Records[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources regarding this record label, or any signed artists that might suggest notability under N:MUSIC #5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Article created in 2005 by Warpozio, who is still active on Wikipedia. Label specialises in releasing exclusive material in digital format only, mostly the "Epitonic Saki Sessions" in which bands are recorded live in the Saki record store which occupies the same building as the record label, and then released for free download or streaming from the Epitonic website [1]. Although many notable artists have recorded for the Saki Sessions (Superchunk, Angel Olsen, Foxygen, the Handsome Family and many more), the exclusive and free nature of these releases means that none of them are notable. I can only find four full releases on the label, the most notable of which is an EP by Girls Against Boys. Richard3120 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Epitonic, which has had some coverage as a website, but I agree with the above that the label does not appear notable enough on its own to warrant a standalone article. gongshow talk 02:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article literally consists of one sentence; A7 material. No need for a redirect as it's unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 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) 19:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis (sigil)[edit]

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

The sources in the article are all unreliable. Blogs, Youtube, and other useless sources etc. I'v searched for academic sources via Google Books and the web in general, but nothing reliable so far has appeared; Just more blogs and artwork. I can only assume this was just a trend or probably from some comic book or anime. Whatever it is, the article fails WP:N JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: fails WP:N and WP:GNG; concur with @JudeccaXIII regarding lack of reliable sourcing; apparently promotional in nature. Quis separabit? 22:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick search throws up nothing, well beyond some very iffy stuff on some very iffy sites. Nope looks made up to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any indication of real notability. It seems to be almost entirely promotional in nature, and the dkmu.org (the DKMU being the group that supposedly invented this thing) forum is either infected with some really incompetent malware or had its security designed by a moron. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only somewhat notable in a specific subculture. It may be useful to know that duplicating the symbol and having it seen by as much people as possible is believed to increase its power, meaning that this article may also be a type of soapboxing. —Paleo Neonate – 16:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as articles on such things don't have to be from the Middle Ages. Possibly notable for its widespread usage, and from reading about this it seems the name of the page should be 'The Linking Sigil', which I've created as a redirect (along with 'Linking sigil'). Maybe this deletion request should be posted on more project pages, or at least some of the editors who may have an interest in such things can be notified. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but they still have to be notable(that is to say verifiabley notable).Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 21:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 21:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at WP:FTN. —Paleo Neonate – 22:01, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hoyt[edit]

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

Biography, flagged as unsourced since 2009, of a radio and television personality, who has potentially valid claims of notability for some of his television work -- but nothing that would hand him an automatic presumption of notability just because he existed, if sourcing isn't there to get him past WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ive added references to article and by this wayi think its completely notable fore Wikipedia Mr.ref (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You've added a member profile on the self-published website of an organization he was directly involved with, a piece on the website of his own church in which he was the bylined author and not the subject, and his IMDb profile — which are all primary sources that cannot assist notability. To establish notability, sources have to represent reliable source coverage about him in media independent of him, such as newspapers, magazines or books — it's not enough to just use his own self-created web presence as verification that he existed. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; a run-of-the-mill radio personality. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The recent changes to the article do not convince me. No presumptuous claims for notability and WP:GNG is obviously not being met.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't see any reason to re-list this a third time right now. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Holloway[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality, whose potential claims of notability aren't properly sourced. Of the 11 sources here, seven of them are primary sources (her own staff profiles on the websites of her own employers, participation in an event sourced to that event's own self-published press releases, etc.) -- and of the four that are reliable sources, two are just glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her, and one of the two remaining sources that are substantive enough to count toward WP:GNG is a deadlink whose content is unretrievable. So there's only one source here at all that's reliable and substantive and verifiable -- but one source isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has been a DJ in several markets, and the info related to charity work and awards makes me think she meets WP:GNG (although not by a lot). PK T(alk) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a DJ in several markets and/or doing charity work aren't notability claims for a radio personality — most DJs in commercial radio move around to different markets over the course of their careers, and most DJs in commercial radio do work for local charities in their spare time. And at any rate, GNG is a measure of the quality of sourcing that's present in the article, not just of anything that the article says — and the sourcing present here isn't adequate at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 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 soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. Mz7 (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long Days Ride 'Till Tomorrow[edit]

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

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

Followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live in Concert November 4th, 2001. While there once was a time when albums and EPs didn't need to show or source any notability claim besides "was released by a notable band", that's no longer the standard that applies today -- they now need to be reliably sourced as passing WP:NALBUMS for something more than just existing. While the band's three studio albums are repairable, these two are rarities compilations that were released after they got dropped from Sub Pop and broke up -- so there's no real notability claim, and no genuinely strong reliable sourcing, available for either of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 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, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deerfield, Garrett County, Maryland[edit]

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

This is a small housing development, not an actual town. Per WP:GEOLAND, notability of these locations is considered on a case-by-case basis. The article cites no third-party sources, has no citations, and gives no clear indication that it is notable. Bitmapped (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems not to be encyclopedically notable. --do ncr am 17:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Small private development with no indication of notability. MB 03:37, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Learning by Observing and Pitching In[edit]

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

Non notable concept w/o significant independent coverage. I removed the most recent ProD as prior ProD had been removed, making it ineligible. So here we are. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above, no examples of it's widespread use. — IVORK _Discuss 23:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches of the concept do not turn up much beyond the articles coining the concept itself. The LOPI concept does not appear to be "worthy of note" per the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 19:02, 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. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beat of Indian Youth[edit]

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

Unable to see how this can pass WP:NALBUM. Edwardx (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Notable album having song written by former Indian President A P J Abdul Kalam . Enough and more reliable sources. The nominator is continuouly nominating articles without even reading the references or checking whether news articles are reliable or not BetterSmile:D (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Album fails WP:NALBUM and possible WP:GNG. Note that while a former Indian president did write the lyics for some songs notability is not inherited.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NALBUM. Also manages to be almost entirely promotional despite being a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 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 Speedy Keep Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen Jacobs[edit]

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

Insufficient sources to establish notability for this young child actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggessting redirection to List_of_Hawaii_Five-0_(2010_TV_series)_characters#Will_Grover TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Child (Zen practitioner)[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. Either associated sources or minor mentions/unreliable sources come up with google search. And nothing in this article indicates notable accomplishments, other than being a zen practitioner. ‡ ᕮl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several searches do not turn up independent, third party sources required for inclusion in Wikipedia by the general notability guideline. Malinaccier (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence in independent, third-party sources of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:36, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Mirza[edit]

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

Fails under WP:TOOSOON SahabAli wadia 10:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:ACTORS. --Saqib (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: And also it is written like an advertisement. Also agree with your point. SahabAli wadia 15:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I am applying proposed deletion and I am sure you will not have any problem. SahabAli wadia 17:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Gumaan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet our WP:TVSERIES notability guidelines. SahabAli wadia 11:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 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. Nobody has put forward a rationale for keeping the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Red Eyes (film)[edit]

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

No claim of notability, in fact it hasn't come out yet. Google only comes up with connected sources, and what may be a trailer on the Travel channel? But that doesn't create notability. Sorry ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:NFF. Recreate if/when it's released, or it meets WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 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. Very low activity despite several relists. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future Legend Records[edit]

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

not notable independent label E-Kartoffel (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the biggest success of this label seems to be the assignment from "Dr. Martens" for the CD . Ca. 60-80% of the music of this label is by Russell Brennan himself, the label owner. Eleanor Rigby was his wife. The article is obviously written by Brennan or someone very close to him. The label's success is exaggerated (mildly expressed). See also the article about the (for wikipedia actually unnotable) Future-Legend-artist Misty Woods. E-Kartoffel (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a record label with no indications of notability or significance. Lack of sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Ellen Randolph[edit]

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

Animator and book self-publisher. Neither she nor her company "Pirate Shades Productions" has any news coverage at all. None of her videos on YouTube have more than a few hundred views. This article also promotes a charity foundation in her name; it has 24 followers on Twitter and no news presence either. Contested PROD by the article creator with comment "This page was created with to almost the same words as a vetified actor. So what is the deletion issue?". Blythwood (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Blythwood (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete., Nom's assessment is about right. Agricola44 (talk) 22:39, 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. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS M100[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Sourced only to a corporate press release, dated today. Possibly a G11 candidate. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Product has significant news coverage outside of wikipedia, warranting its inclusion. Article needs minor improvement and tagging, not deletion. PureRED | talk to me | 13:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article needs to be expanded, but really is no different than other Wikipedia articles on Canon's camera technology, and may be of historic value when this camera has come and gone. Ryger3351 | talk to me | 09:05, 31 August 2017 (PST)
Keep: I think it is a useful article for interested people, what kind of features a camera have. I think it should be seen in context with other vendor cameras, like Sony or Fuji and others. You can find also article about their cameras, some very short (Fujifilm X-A1), some more much advanced. I agree, there is place for improvement, but currently I have no better sources. --GodeNehler (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To my knowledge, it is widely accepted on the WP to include articles on individual camera models, the EOS M100 is by far not the first one. Having this articles makes sense and does not make the WP a "product catalog". (In addition, to delete this article would be a precedent, also the other articles would have to be deleted.) ʘχ (talk) 16:44, 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) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olayemi Esan[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger/media consultant lacking non-trivial, independent sources. No independent support for the minor awards. A good number of the "references" are from subject's blog. reddogsix (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Note-the editor that created this article continues to add unrelated "references." reddogsix (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excellent nomination, per that, non-notable nearly won an award, but based solely on trivia. — fortunavelut luna 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The organisers of the said Awards didnt make use of the internet to document their events, thus, we find it hard to use a Source for the Award. I have uploaded an evidence pictures showing the Article is real, she received the two Award.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pye Olayemi Esan (talk • contribs) — Pye Olayemi Esan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing of note to meet WP:ANYBIO. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not sufficiently notable, and lacking any RS sources to show notability. This does not mean the person can not become notable, only that the BLP does not meet Wikipedia guidelines at this point. Collect (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The additional references suggest it is no longer WP:TOOSOON to have an article. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Glass (Rachel Platten song)[edit]

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

Permastub article with little indication of notability one week after release of single, a cursory search for articles turns up little in depth review. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rachel Platten. How can it be a permastub if it was just released as the first single from an upcoming album? Sources may come but in the meantime WP:CHEAP. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. While it is probably WP:TOOSOON for an article on the song, a redirect to the artist seems appropriate to me until the song is either notable in its own right or fades into obscurity. Cthomas3 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TOOSOON. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – added some content and a few references which discuss the song in some detail. It ranked on US Adult Top 40. – Einstein2 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:NSONG per a review of sources added to the article when it was significantly expanded on 5 September 2017 (UTC) by Einstein2. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 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. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Collenette[edit]

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

Non-notable, unelected politician - WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and MOS:CA#Politics. Madg2011 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While she certainly would not meet the WP:NPOL guideline, her selection to the Order of Ontario is pretty persuasive evidence of her notability. PK T(alk) 19:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article definitely needs a major overhaul, I won't argue with that — as written, it puts far too much weight on her non-winning candidacy for Parliament, and not enough on her actual basis for notability, which is her time as a Liberal campaign strategist and staffer in the PMO in the Jean Chrétien era. A ProQuest search reveals quite a bit of coverage of her in those roles, as well, so the sourcing can be repaired to put the notability where it belongs. And yeah, the Order of Ontario don't hurt. Bearcat (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I trust Bearcat that based on ProQuest she would meet the GNG as a political strategist. Regardless of that, she meets WP:ANYBIO by having the Order of Ontario. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre of Zambia[edit]

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

Unsourced meaningless nanostub, untouched since 2009. Topic doesn't seem to exist given all the weird wording. Deprodded for no valid reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a source to a book chapter about the subject and deprodded this for a perfectly valid reason. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better than nothing and (now) offers at least a coherent overview. It has a ref. It's tagged as a stub. An essay-like tag could maybe added if people choose, too. We're going to want a Theatre in Foo main article for every country that has theatre -- which is to say every country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: So "this barely even exists, we don't know if we can even define it" is a coherent overview? How about proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does exist so you don't have to resort to weasel wording? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source that I added proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it exists. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. This idea that Zambia can't possibly have theatre -- because the poor Zambians haven't figured it out something so complex, or whatever -- doesn't wear well. It's a nation of 16+ million people. But keep it up TPH your flailings at Afd are always good. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the merits, per the above. At most, you might have an argument for merging to Zambia#culture or some such. But the implication that the subject doesn't exist is, as noted above, a troubling one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (Shawn in Montreal Country articles seem to use "Theatre of..." more than "Theatre in..."). For Zambia, there's clearly significant coverage in RS (Cambridge guides to Theatre and African and Caribbean theatre, World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: Africa, A History of Theatre in Africa, African Popular Theatre: From Pre-colonial Times to the Present Day, etc). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydronium Hydroxide: And of course, source dumping in an AFD means they will automatically be added to the article themselves, right? That must be why the article is still fucking untouched since goddamn 2009. If this really were a notable topic, then the article wouldn't be a meaningless microstub stinking up the wikipedia since goddamn fucking forever. But yeah, let's just let it sit and rot forever because there's no deadline right? I think I'll write an article on my own ass, because it exists and therefore must be notable. Who cares if the article is still 5 words long 10 years from now? Effort? What the fuck is that?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you fucking notice that this fucking article had a fucking reference to a fucking 11-page fucking chapter about the fucking subject in a fucking book published by a fucking reliable fucking publisher before you fucking started this fucking discussion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TPH - you're better than this. Cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz: So are you going to add the sources, or are you also hoping they'll just magically add themselves and make this an FA overnight? If you can be bothered to scream that it's notable, you can be bothered to throw the goddamn sources in there yourself. Otherwise, this article is just gonna sit and continue to rot because everyone else is just going to say it's somebody else's problem. I thought this was a project where people worked together, not a place where we just sit round and pass the buck all day long. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason pots and kettles come to mind when I read that comment. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Your nomination was that the article was unsourced (and had been for a long time), and that the subject did not exist. The first point has been addressed - there's a source now. The second point is laughable bordering on offensive. It's thin, yes - which is why I suggested that a merge might be better. There are few editors on this project who know more about our deletion processes than you do - for fuck's sake, see also WP:HAMMER. And that's really my point - you're getting really really worked up over this article (and other recent AFDs, as noted at WT:AFD), and quite frankly I think your conduct is becoming problematic. But for your name at the top here, I wouldn't expect this sort of nomination from you, nor would I have expected your reactions here and elsewhere recently. I'm suggesting nothing more than that y'all need to take a deep breath and cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that there was a source referenced in the article before this discussion was started - I added it when I contested the WP:PROD deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz: So are you going to expand the article or what? It's absolutely annoying that this nanostub has existed forever without anyone touching it, and everyone is screaming "keep, it's notable" but not putting in the effort to fix it. Don't bother defending it if you can't be bothered to also fix it. This thing happens all the goddamn time, where everyone clamors for notability, but nobody can be bothered to fix it up. Why is that so hard? Are you going to fix it, or are you just going to let it fester too? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of articles that need improvement. Ultraexactzz, like any other editor, is a volunteer who chooses where to work on Wikipedia, which may well not be on the specific article that you choose to focus on. The only way for you to ensure that this specific article is worked on is for you to do it yourself, per WP:SEP, which you cite yourself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion guidelines, "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator". A deletion nomination does not create editors with spare time to work on the nominated article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 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) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Chow[edit]

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

Being the first from group X to do Y isn't something that is inherently notable, and even if that event has significant coverage, it is WP:BLP1E. Other sources are either routine coverage of crimes he investigated (not coverage of him in detail) or less than reliably sourced. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Police department executives, even of a large force like LA's, are not inherently notable. I'm not persuaded by the claim that he's the highest-ranking Chinese-American in the history of the force. Every police department will have a highest-ranking Foo-American, for various values of Foo. Multiply the number of large police departments by the number of possible values of Foo, and we'd be overrun with articles with no other claim to notability than the ethnicity of the person occupying the position. Certainly, if Chow were independently notable, his being the highest-ranking Chinese-American ought to be included; but it's not itself enough for notability. TJRC (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the merits. Oddly, WP:USUAL applies, however - if, for example, Cdr. Chow becomes Chief of Police or something, then you might have a case for an article. At this point, given the coverage in evidence, BLP1E seems to control. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, where most of the officers who served as Chief are bluelinks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need significant, sustained coverage which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 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) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burns (jurist)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Routine coverage for a political candidate. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG; apart from the political candidacy, professional credentials are within normal limits for any litigation partner of a certain age in a large national law firm in the U.S. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakant Madhvi[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Thane Municipal Corporation is the governing body for Thane (population just under 2 mil people), and deputy mayor appears to be an elected position. For comparison, the city of Chicago is over 2 mil ppl, and most of its aldermen have articles: Chicago_City_Council#Chicago_aldermen. To prevent systemic bias, I'm voting keep. Given the size of the population, the subject also probably meets WP:NPOL. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman has convinced me I was wrong - nomination withdrawn. Boleyn (talk) 05:17, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rangrez Mustaquim Akhtar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and references provided look unconvincing. The article is promotional in tone and such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mortimer Montgomery[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Has Times obit and Who's Who entry - usually enough for WP:GNG. Threehundredeight (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the Times obit., was it paid for or just coverage for free?There are many Who's Who guides, I wouldn't say inclusion in one I've never heard of would be automatic inclusion, do you have evidence of extensive coverage, Threehundredeight? Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to Times database at the moment. The Who's Who guide is the one cited in the article - most editors who know anything about UK biographies will be very familiar with that source. Threehundredeight (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google Books search with narrowly drawn date parameters yields a reasonable number of book hits, such as this 1914 mention which describes Montgomery as "the author of the well-known work, “Montgomery's Licensing Practice”". bd2412 T 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a bit of material. This subject seems to meet the letter of WP:AUTHOR, given that there is a source literally describing a book written by him as a "well-known work". bd2412 T 23:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per comments above and improvements to article. Boleyn (talk) 05:17, 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) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIT Therapeutics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. PROD contested by article creator. shoy (reactions) 16:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. There is a brief item about their product in trial here but other than that and the usual listings I am seeing no coverage of this company (as distinct from the general field in which they operate, which provides the main article content and references and belongs in Nitric_oxide#Medical_use). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing in article is not enough. I was not able to find enough of substance. Company has a market cap of 36m and is traded OTC.Icewhiz (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete obvious promotion. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and getting more absurdly promotional as time goes on diff. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 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 speedy deleted A7 ... discospinster _talk 17:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard F Devon[edit]

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

Hoax Rhadow (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is already a correctly placed speedy tag on the page and it obviously vandalism so not sure why it's been put to AFD? - Pmedema (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello Pmedema -- The AfD preceded the speedy tag. I think the system is working as it should. Rhadow (talk) 17:19, 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 redirect to Eleven International Publishing. Sandstein 12:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Employment Law Cases[edit]

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

This journal is neither well renowned nor has received significant media coverage Failosopher (talk) 15:46, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eleven International Publishing, its owner, as it's mentioned there. postdlf (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see anything indicating notability. Not sure about merging either, as I don't see anything establishing notability of the publisher... There's one other journal article (European Journal of Law Reform), which doesn't seem to be notable either. As an aside, note that all three articles (the 2 journals and the publisher) were created by a COI editor. --Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliel Vieira[edit]

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

This article about a make-up artist consists mostly of lists of his clients. The article lacks independent, reliable sources writing about his work as a make-up artist. The sources used in this article are neither reliable nor independent. They are mostly brief mentions, don't mention him at all (cosmopolitan), or they are advertorials posing as tutorials, where an advertiser pays to receive a celebrity endorsement. That the celebrity in question has been manufactured by a marketing firm is not mentioned in the sources, who depend on advertising revenue from the cosmetic companies. Mduvekot (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only argument for deletion has been by the nominator, other users please also share your thoughts
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 15:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable makeup artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article mentions several artists associated with him, but Notability is not inherited. Bolhones (talk) 20:19, 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 and redirect to James Bond in film#Bond 25 (2019). There is clear consensus here that the topic is too speculative for a standalone article at the moment. Hut 8.5 20:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bond 25[edit]

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

Delete/salt and redirect to James Bond in film#Bond 25 (2019). It clearly fails WP:NFF since filming has not begun. Point #5 of WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". Most of what is in the article at this point is a mix of Eon announcements and unsourced speculation, especially in the Lead (title, singer, etc.) BilCat (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Bond in film#Bond 25 (2019) (Are we only having this conversation because an IP decided to edit war to re-open a previous redirect?) Funnily enough I had the same conversation with SonOfThornhill and Prisonermonkeys on the Talk:Spectre (2015 film) page on ostensibly the same matter, and we came to the same decision about a redirect.

We had exactly the same discussion for the last film and the one before that. It's partly because the numbering is always suspect (this will be the 27th Bond film to be made, it's the 25th Eon film) but mostly per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". On all the previous Bond films I've worked on (the last 3 or 4), we've waited until the press conference that launches the name and the main actors, before we launch the page with the correct name. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page was first restored by a registered user, and then by an IP (possibly the same user). Rather than edit war, I decided an AFD was warranted, especially as it will allow future restorations to be eligible for CSD. - BilCat (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing has really happened on it yet. The whole article is just a bunch of announcements along with some speculation. And while the next James bond film may seem like a sure thing the series has had hiccups in the past, with the series being put on hiatus in the early 90s. So I agree with SchroCat: wait at least until it gets a title, and then create the article if there is sufficienct encyclopedic content. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: half the article is speculation; the other half appears to be original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: I agree. Wait at least until the film is titled and starts filming. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect fails WP:NFF; until filming is confirmed to have begun and the title is revealed. The redirect should also be fully protected to prevent further premature article creation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect As with the consensus, I believe it fails WP:NFF due to the fact that it is probably in pre-production and is frankly too far in the future to be certain if the movie will continue. In addition, the movie has no official title as of 29 August 2017 which makes the article completely unworthy of its own article. It is just a project name. Wait till the movies is shooting as confirmed and enough hard evidence on it notability comes up. For now, it is a future movie without a proper name. Dictonary1 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Oh dear! The creator also created Draft:Shatterhand, which has now been moved to mainspace as Shatterhand (film)! Facepalm I'm not touching it. - BilCat (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Draft:Bond 25 also exists, and predates all these other versions. - BilCat (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh dear. I've moved Shatterhand back to Drafts with a note on the talk page. If it is moved back across I'll nom for deletion and link it to this discussion. – SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SchroCat — I'd send Shatterhand (film) to WP:RFD. It's a speculated title and they're a dime a dozen—I remember "The Emerald Sphere" being reported as a working title for what became Quantum of Solace. The only source I can find "reporting" Shatterhand is The Hindustan Times, and if production of Skyfall taught us anything it's that they're extraordinarily good at publishing misinformation. Also, I'd stop editing the Bond 25 article. The more crap we leave in there, the more likely it is to be deleted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 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. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar Plaza[edit]

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

Seems like just another building to me. TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -To you, perhaps, but not to those in Myanmar. This page was requested by another user to be built. To my knowledge, Wikipedia is making efforts to be inclusive of non-English speaking countries and countries that are underrepresented. There are plenty of extra articles about Myanmar Plaza in the Burmese language, but I unfortunately cannot access them as I speak only English. I am hoping the page will be amended by those who are bilingual and can add to it. Brittney Tun

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, building does have considerable coverage in Burmese and some coverage in English too. www.myanmarinsider.com/a-sneak-peak-inside-myanmar-plaza/. www.yangonlife.com.mm/en/directory/myanmar-plaza-shopping-center. www.mmtimes.com/business/17998-myanmar-plaza-open-for-business.html --Failosopher (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Yes, and that link as well as many others are in the article. Brittney Tun —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable building in Myanmar should not be deleted unless there is support from locals which the proposer does not appear to be. Bkerensa (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the largest shopping complex in Yangon with significant coverage in news. Phyo WP (message) 22:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per above comments. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 03:01, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams (Virginia)[edit]

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

Unelected politician, not a GNG pass independently of political activity. Effectively a campaign biography for a forthcoming electoral race. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected politicians are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As yet unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — but all of the media coverage here is directly campaign-related, which means there's no evidence that he would have cleared a Wikipedia notability standard for any other reason independent of his candidacy. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the election — but there's no evidence here that he passes any notability standard right now. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; strongest argument for notability is that he's a still-unelected candidate for a statewide office; and that's not enough. TJRC (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. Meets WP:GNG with multiple in-depth profiles: Washington Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Fairfax Times, WRIC, etc. Instaurare (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign-related coverage doesn't help get a candidate over WP:GNG in and of itself — if it did, then every candidate for anything would always pass GNG, because every candidate for anything always gets some campaign coverage. To get him an article before he wins the election, you would have to show that he had already received enough media coverage to clear GNG for other reasons completely independent of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. The standard for evaluating an un-elected candidate for a state-wide office is WP:NPOL and while the race for Attorney General may be notable, the candidates may not necessarily be per WP:BLP1E (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the title of article is not suitable due to the title should write for example John Adams (his career) but was written by name of town.Mr.ref (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone here; it's clear based on discussion at WP:VPP there's a consensus against keeping articles on candidates whose primary claim of notability is being a candidate in a down-ballot state-level race. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:56, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Guys Finish First[edit]

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

The claim of notability seems absurdly niche. TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bestsellers list reference says #42. Comes without a review. Two reviews on Amazon, one by a friend of the author. Amazon ranking #2,072,877. Rhadow (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG; no sources seemed to be available, though this was somewhat confounded by a song with a similar title. --Hazarasp (talk) 11:58, 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. bd2412 T 21:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power & Communication Contractors Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. WP:BEFORE checks reveal no independent coverage per WP:NORG. DrStrauss talk 13:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would also seem to fit speedy A7. But was a proper search made under WP:BEFORE?GoogleNews alone is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gbooks just has directory listings. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, WP:BEFORE has been done. DrStrauss talk 09:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somewhat surprisingly, searches do not turn up any significant third-party coverage. There are some mentions in directories and congressional hearings, but these mentions are in passing. The association does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 20:18, 7 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. Sandstein 09:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robotronic Squad[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. DrStrauss talk 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable references and none of the members appear to be notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:58, 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. Sandstein 12:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Al-Medlij[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL, WP:GNG or any other part of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL as the subject is an elected chairman/president of Kuwait Economic Association, which is a national office that is involved in politics/economy-related decision making. Added 4 additional independent sources to assure meeting WP:GNG. --Aaehasa (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails [WP:PROF]]; head of a NN NGO. Those sources don't convince me. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bearian. How do sources fail WP:PROOF? Sources #2 through #7 and #9 are mainstream newspapers, which are Al-Qabas, Al-Anba_(Kuwait), Al_Rai_(Kuwaiti_newspaper), Al-Jarida, Al-Seyassah and Annahar_(Kuwait). Sources #1 and #8, in the other hand, are linked to the official website of the association the subject is a head of. --Aaehasa (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the board lacks an aritcle, being its chairman is not enough to make one notable. Sources do not establish notability, and being part of some board in and of itself does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have a point, the association must have an article and it is on my to-do list as appears on my user page. However, do you really think lack of an article of a "notable" association should prevent its chairman from passing WP notability guidelines? Notability isn't time-sensitive to what comes first into WP, is it? --Aaehasa (talk) 09:01, 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. Sandstein 21:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Kulide o' Scope[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Quite promotional too. DrStrauss talk 12:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Article has no references except MySpace and Google search returns nothing. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:24, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tahoka Freeway[edit]

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

Band doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BAND. There's quite a bit of WP:PROMO as well. DrStrauss talk 12:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no hits, no TV, no radio airplay, no national tours. Definitely fails WP:BAND Rogermx (talk) 15:45, 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 withdrawn. Changed my mind re the rationales in the keep votes. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 20:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatano Jazz Band[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. No independent coverage in reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 12:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no indication that this band recorded (unsurprising given its era) but there are enough English language book references (now added to the article) indicating its primacy in its field which I think meets WP:BAND criteria 1 and 7. AllyD (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a bit more from a couple of sources. A combination of criteria 1 and (oddly, perhaps) 4 looks fine. EddieHugh (talk) 16:31, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Wan[edit]

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

The coverage is what you would expect for a local councillor. He doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Being the first openly gay local councillor for a city doesn't make you notable. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Oakland is a large and prominent enough city that its municipal councillors might clear the bar if they could be significantly substanced and well-sourced as significantly more notable than the norm for that level of significance, it is not in the narrow range of cities where the councillors are automatically presumed notable under WP:NPOL. Of the 15 sources shown here, 12 are primary sources or blogs that cannot assist notability, leaving us with just three pieces of actual media coverage — but those three pieces of media coverage are purely local and routine. And no, being the first openly LGBT person to hold an otherwise non-notable office isn't a notability freebie, either — we do not automatically hand notability to every individual city's first woman, first LGBT or first person of colour to get elected to the city council, if their sourceability is otherwise this poor. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is way below the level needed to show notability for a member of a city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trepanga[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Little WP:SIGCOV in WP:IRS. DrStrauss talk 12:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 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. Consensus is that this organization does not meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Seniors Squash Rackets Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 12:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: Seriously? Completely unreferenced, never has been referenced, has had the same form, format and rankings for nine years (are all of those players even still alive?), no sources on Google except for this article and Wiki mirrors. Far from being "generally regarded as the top level of squash competition for senior citizens in Massachusetts" (whom by, exactly?), I'm wondering if this outfit even exists, something fueled by that the creation of this article was the sole Wikipedia activity of the editor who did so. Ravenswing 14:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a classic example of what happens when no notability controls exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 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. Consensus is clearly in favour of deletion, owing to e.g concerns about the reliability of most sources and that the topic hasn't had their research widely covered by reliable sources. In addition, the keep !votes appear to mostly come from single purpose accounts and rely too much on anecdotal and unreliable (Facebook followers) evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nassim Haramein[edit]

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

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

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

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

Created as an apparent fan biography by users who, going by the talk page, do not seem to understand Wikipedia BLP rules on sourcing. The current version is after serious culling of the bad sourcing; here's (what I think was) the first live version and here's a reference check I did; it was a tissue of primary sources and puffery. A source check finds coverage in non-RSes, but nothing indicating actual RS notability as a physicist or in general terms. Please also check the talk page discussion. David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing problems here are insurmountable. While I'd personally heard of him, and think it's an interesting enough case due to his followers, there just hasn't been enough written/reported in secondary sources to make this feasible. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:GNG. This article has been around the block 3 times and the current version has been here since June, but still the best source that we find is a paragraph in Hollywood Reporter about a crowdfunded documentary. When there are multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail, we can talk again. --Slashme (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically it was created in AFC in June and only went live a weekish ago - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the above, better sources are needed. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE and secondarily WP:PROF. Pseudo-physics can be a worthy subject of an article, if it's attracted enough attention and discussion in reliable sources (ECE theory comes to mind, for example), but this doesn't reach that level. I had at first thought that the documentary might be more notable than the person, but on closer investigation, the movie doesn't appear notable either. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haramein has a very well-funded PR machinery (including the crowd-funded documentary) that presents him as if he is revolutionising the heart of physics, and an evangelical following that promotes this narrative. As others have said, this is kind of interesting in itself, but it hasn't yet made enough of a splash to be notable. Personally I would like there to be some kind of page here that could document the absurdities of his physics claims, the lack of recognition by the physics community and the total absence of his 15+ years of research in any of the standard huge collections of trusted physics content. I think this would help counter the mythology. But a Wikipedia bio clearly isn't a suitable place to document an absence of validity or recognition. – Bobathon71 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to pile on and further drive the point home, per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS, no evidence of WP:Notability. Haramein gets only the booby prize for creativity, using crowd funding to support a "documentary" on his dubious work. Wikipedia is not improved by including this bio of a poser. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ Wow, "bio of a poser", glad to see we're being so democratic here. Again, what are your credentials in the physics community to say who is a poser or not? Plus, YES, plenty of evidence of notability, you are just choosing to ignore it...Poolshark9 (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC) poolshark9[reply]
Keep I am a PhD physicist and have heard Nassim Haramein’s theories discussed in many physics meetings and conferences. I have followed his work for many years and his physics is sound. His work is always ahead of the times and is continuously corroborated by the leading physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind. As well, his notability is evident from the numerous books, movies and articles that mention him.-2600:1012:B147:2E9:217B:49FC:B65D:C215 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)— 2600:1012:B147:2E9:217B:49FC:B65D:C215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you please provide any reliable source(s) supporting your assertion that, "Nassim Haramein’s theories discussed in many physics meetings and conferences"? And also any reliable source(s) that his work has been "corroborated by the leading physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind"? If that information can be verified, it could be added to the article, and if not, your argument above becomes irrelevant. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haramein treats nucleons as mini black holes in his holographic mass solution which Hawking has been theorizing about since 1971 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/mnras/152.1.75 and has since been corroborated by Leonard Susskind (one of the founders of the holographic principle). For instance, in his lecture for ER=EPR, he states “…there is no sharp separation between particles and black holes…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBPpRqxY8Uw&t=5822s at 1:35:45. Throughout the years, I have followed Nassim Haramein’s work which he has presented at numerous conferences including the American Physical Society and more recently the Royal Society. Haramein would have been involved in numerous discussions at these physics conferences, which I was privy to some. However, they were informal and so unfortunately there is no record. Therefore, like the other commenters on this discussion for deletion page - all I can offer is my opinion. If my argument is irrelevant than so is that of the other comments in this discussion for deletion page. - 2600:1012:B147:2E9:217B:49FC:B65D:C215 (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misunderstood what I meant by providing reliable sources. The lecture by Susskind and the 1971 paper by Hawking are primary sources, from which you have concluded they corroborated Haramein’s theories. This is a synthesis, your own conclusion, not something published by a secondary source stating that theories of Hawking and Susskind agreed with Haramein’s work. It's not that your opinion is irrelevant, but that the conclusions you have drawn are not published by independent, secondary, reliable sources, the standard required here. Without such sources to back your argument, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the corroboration that never stops. An endless, perpetual, continuous corroboration. A cosmic background corroboration permeating all of spacetime. You can’t point to it because it’s everywhere. Like the Higgs field. It's a remarkable phenomenon. :/ Bobathon71 (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A retrocausal corroboration that reaches back in time to 1971, forming a closed timelike curve that no heretical opinions can interrupt. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harameins work is published in peer review science journals - to be published in peer reviewed science journals you have to pass peer review which means your work is validated by other scientists with PhDs. For science to be valid and relavent that is the criteria ... whether you agree or not is irrelavent. These references were included in the original article. Obviously not all scientists will have wiki pages, only scientists who are also notable - which Nassim Haramein is. This is evident by the amount of articles, books and movies that Nassim is either mentioned in or has contributed too.-2600:1012:B12C:9BCB:11B2:4059:531F:CC04 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my comment below: in 15+ years of research, Haramein has had only one paper pass formal peer review, and that was published by this group. None of his work appears in any of the huge sources of trusted content that physicists use. When I say huge, I mean millions of articles. Pretty much every graduate student has work on here. For work of the significance Haramein claims, this is a very low bar. – Bobathon71 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources were found and added to this article since it was originally AfD. He was the cover story on both referenced magazine articles, which are detailed articles on his life and theory. His film broke crowdfunding records, and was consequently positively reviewed in multiple independent well-known publications. - Joe science (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In physics, talking about one's work at a conference means almost nothing. The currency of the science is publications in journals, not APS talks. (Also, the "ER=EPR" conjecture is both speculative and completely different from what Haramein has been saying, despite the use of a few terms in common.) Furthermore, as was discussed at the AfD for the documentary, the claim that the film broke any records is press-release-parroting and untrue. XOR'easter (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The project you linked is a film, not a documentary. The record was for an Indiegogo crowdfunded documentary, and is not only backed by multiple secondary sources which are well known publications^[1]^[2], but is even on Vimeo's own press release about a joint venture with Indiegogo - which also includes the fact that The Connected Universe was their first project to be released on their video on demand streaming partnership with indiegogo. - Joe science (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Patrick Stewart Narrating New Documentary 'The Connected Universe'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2017-09-03.
^ "Vancouver documentary breaks crowdfunding record on Indiegogo". The Globe and Mail. 2015-02-04. Retrieved 2017-09-03.

- I find it hard to draw a line between documentaries and biopics; a claim to notability should be based on sounder stuff than narrowly specific superlatives. And even if we take the "best funded documentary at Indiegogo" claim at face value, why should setting a record at one particular time with one particular fundraising platform count? Over at KickStarter, Bill Nye got $859,425 the same year. As I said above, I did find the film's case for notability stronger than the person's, but ultimately, I wasn't sold on that either. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who is saying his notability is riding on a single claim? It's one of many indications that Nassim's work has reached a wide audience. The fact that the film was reviewed in multiple prominent publications is indication of the same (and of notability, it is of course an exposé of his life's work). It's just another bullet point, along with (but not limited to) the numerous magazine articles, features/forewards in books, and features in various documentary films that Haramein has. - Joe science (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just the point that The Bill Nye Film (2015-07-13) is more recent than The Connected Universe which crowdfunding campaign started in December 2014. You quoting this film on kickstarter don't change the claim about The Connected Universe being the most funded documentary at this time.OlivierR (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC) — OlivierR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - I was not claiming that his notability was "riding on a single claim"; I was discussing the notability of the documentary itself, since the supposed success of that film had been invoked. XOR'easter (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR or WP:CELEBRITY. What we're left with is something of a WP:FRINGEBLP and, according to that criteria, there do not seem to be the independent, reliable sources that indicate Haramein has made the notable mark necessary for Wikipedia to be able to have a decent article about him. These are difficult cases because there are a lot of fans and followers who have generated content about him on various platforms, but they fail our WP:RS tests for what we would need to write a decent article. jps (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This expresses my position better than I did. Thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your claim about "fans and followers" can apply on fan website and blogs like the one of bobathon. And it is true, there are a lot of them because this new theory inspires a lot of peopel. But it is not about these sources. The WP:RS used in this articles are magazines like Nexus or Face the Current, webTV like Gaia, TedX talk [2], mainstream films like Thrive or The Connected Universe or for well knonwn journalist like Bob Bellanca [3]. There are plenty WP:RS to write a pretty decent and interesting article based only on facts. Stop trying to censure and stay on the facts. OlivierR (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "There are plenty WP:RS to write a pretty decent and interesting article based only on facts." Then they need to be in the article, because they absolutely aren't there as yet - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is true. As you are suggesting, I will update the current page with all these missing information. OlivierR (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the content of his work, it seems as though his documentary and work has been recognized by multiple mainstream outlets and publications. I looked up his Facebook page which has almost 700,000 followers and the Facebook page for his science foundation which has almost 800,000 followers, seems pretty notable to me. I don't understand why he shouldn't be allowed a biography page. Poolshark9 (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC) poolshark9 — Poolshark9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Alas, Facebook followers do not count as reliable, independent sources. But Facebook would be a good place to post the biography of Nassim Haramein. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Intelligent Optimist and Face the Current are both detailed exposes of his work, and compeletely relevant to a biographical page on Haramein. Both articles can be found with minimal googling to verify. His film has been widely recognized and broke records through crowdfunding. Further, BobAThon has been in a personal 'adversarial' relationship with the subject Nassim Haramein for about 10 years. This is not a personal attack, this is just public knowledge at this point. If you google Nassim Haramein BobAthon this will be immediately obvious.

He holds the main source of 'debunking' material for Nassim's work, with no obvious expertise, and has continued to follow Nassim's work on the internet wherever it shows up. You can see that BobAthon has even used his own blog as a source for Nassim's work being pseudoscience on the comments that started the conversations for this takedown, under the Physics Project page. -Jediblade (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC) — Jediblade (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Two single purpose accounts (Jediblade, OlivierR) = one person = one !vote: see this evidence. - DVdm (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm, What are you talking about? I was just trying to put some formatting to the text... Don't accuse someone of something if you have not some valid and serious proof!OlivierR (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that Wikipedia editors might be swayed by an obscure anonymous blog is rather unrealistic. It badly underestimates the expertise of the people making decisions here. I've never advocated my blog as a source anywhere on Wikipedia, and I haven't brought it up or linked to it anywhere near this page. I don't consider Haramein to be a personal adversary – that's pathetic. I was fascinated by his physics claims and how many people thought they were genuine, and I wrote some posts about them in 2010 (none before, none since). I've looked quite deeply into his papers and I feel able to shed some light on his claims. If I feel it's helpful and relevant in a discussion then there's nothing wrong with linking to points I've already made to save re-hashing them. As noted I haven't even done that here. It's a bit twisted to try to portray me as misleading people or as being some kind of instigator of skepticism. Let's credit experienced people with the ability to think for themselves. – Bobathon71 (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bobathon, since 2010 you are posting all over the web trying to discredit Nassim Haramein work. The only problem is that you clearly don't understand the physics behind this paper. You fail understanding the physic (and it is possible to forgive you on this point because it is quite a complex subject) but the problem is that you concentrate your effort on personal attacks on Nassim Haramein and all his work. The best part is when you are moking the black hole theory like it is an absurdity while in the main time Susskind it's nearly telling everyone that particles are black holes. And everyone will understand that Susskind understand way better the physics than you do. The only surprising fact is that you haven't yet be sued for defamation and slandering... OlivierR (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've never "moked" the idea of particles being black holes, and I have no interest in personal attacks on Haramein. I've never met the guy. What I have criticised is his theory that protons have a mass of 855 million tonnes (because they... don't...), the idea that they have an event horizon with a radius of 1.3fm (when experiments have been routinely probing their internal structure on far smaller scales for decades), the idea that you can model the motion of two black holes whose event horizons are touching using Newton's law of gravity (because black holes have any meaning outside of GR, and ignoring GR in that scenario is unbelievably silly), and so, so, so, so many other incompetent, idiotic things that Haramein claimed just in that one paper. If he wants to take that personally, that's up to him, but I'm talking about the ideas in the paper. If you prefer the story that his work is too wonderful for people like me to understand then please, by all means, stick with that. – Bobathon71 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Agreed, it's interesting you claim to have no consideration of Nassim since your blog post 7 years ago yet there's proof of your constant monitoring of Nassim all over the internet. For instance this simple biographical wiki page that you are so fervently fighting to be taken down. I read your blog. If you're so interested in letting people think for themselves then let them... what make you such an expert on the subject anyway? Do you hold a degree in physics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolshark9 (talk • contribs)

If you criticise a pseudoscientist, their fans and apologists can't resist trying to make the person behind the criticism the focus of the discussion. I don't know why this is, but it's almost universal. So, er, what did you just claim I said? And what did I actually say? Grow up. Talk about the subject under discussion if you have anything to contribute. Bobathon71 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person does not meet notability criteria. Blatant promotion of person and work (obviously by an IP, two newly created usernames, and one single purpose account). - DVdm (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Google score is pretty high, higher than some Nobel physicist so the argument of blatant promotion is quite absurd. But yet Google score and Facebook audience are not notability criteria. But there are many facts showing valid notability: two mainstream films crediting Nassim Haramein work (Thrive, and The Connected Universe), more than 9 publications with collaboration with known physicist, multiple interviews by very well known journalist (Lilou Macé [4] and Bob Bellanca [5]), on the web TV Gaia ([6]) and also multiple article in mainstream journal (Face the Current April 2017, and Nexus [7]). So talking about no notability criteria is quite a joke.OlivierR (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is an open-minded place. It is all about sharing and not about censorship. Nassim Haramein is a controversial physicist but he has notability. His work has been criticized and peer-reviewed (read the peer-review), films have been made about his theory (one featuring Sir Patrick Stewart![8]), papers in various journal were written about his work (Face the Current April 2017, and Nexus [9]) and he was interviewed at multiple time by well known journalist. A Wikipedia page isn't a war zone and it is not about personal attacks. Wikipedia is ONLY about facts! OlivierR (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)— OlivierR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Publication of one paper — in a journal so obscure we don't have an article for it — is not nearly enough to satisfy WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nassim Haramein has nine publication, not only one and some of them were written with Elizabeth A. Rauscher, a well known physycist [10]. He is not an academic and don't satisfy WP:PROF but he clearly satisfies WP:BIO looking at all his work as physicist researcher (he found a non-profit organization 501c3 committed to advancing the research), inventor (he has 4 patents [11]), speaker and entrepreneur (creation of a startup [12]) and looking at all the third source talking about all this work (film, webTV, magazine, interviews, etc.). OlivierR (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well in 15+ years of research, Haramein has had only one paper pass formal peer review, and that was published by these people. None of his work appears in the huge sources of trusted content that physicists use. When I say huge, I mean millions of articles. Pretty much every graduate student has work on here. It's a low bar. – Bobathon71 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out above, Nassim has co-written papers that appear in Elizabeth Rauscher's Selected Works. But that's irrespective of the fact that at the very least he very clearly passes notability for WP:BIO - Joe science (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable (neither as a physicist, nor as an entrepreneur, nor as a celebrity, or whatever). The "record-breaking" indiegogo documentary claim keeps coming up but is based on a misunderstanding of the globe&mail article, which was describing the highest-funded documentary that was actively in progress at the time of the writing, as opposed to the highest-funded to date. The claim that it was the highest-funded to date is supported by no other sources, and indeed is false. It is true only if you cheat by choosing the boundary between non-fiction movie and documentary so as to arbitrarily rule out all the higher-funded documentaries, as is done in the conversation above. Also, as a physicist, I find it highly misleading to say that Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, are even working in the same field of inquiry as him. It is true and uncontroversial that there is no sharp line between a microscopic black hole and an elementary particle (according to string theory). But he did not invent that idea or do anything to advance it, as far as I understand. Just as there is a world of difference between yelling "Time and space are the same!" and actually inventing and justifying and understanding relativity theory, similarly there is a world of difference between saying "black holes are particles" and actually developing the theory that makes the notion meaningful and correct and leads to further insights. --Steve (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't understand this argument about a 'misleading claim'. The claim is and has always very clearly been the highest indiegogo funded documentary (obviously at the time of the articles). These aren't claims of Haramein, or of his supporters, or of a Facebook page, but self-evident claims of well known secondary sources. That's why they are cited. - Joe science (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand not everyone has the physic level to understand the subject. But not understanding something don't allow you to freely decredit the work of others. Haramein actually is "developing the theory that makes the notion meaningful and correct and leads to further insights". If you take the time to read the abstract of his nine papers, you would understand that. If you don't have the scientific knowledge to understand the meaning of all these equations, don't go around insulting the work of someone else. And YES, "Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, are even working in the same field of inquiry as him". So do many others researchers. An Unified Field Theory has yet to be fine and it represents a huge enterprise. It won't be done easily but you seem not to be aware of that. OlivierR (talk) 19:14, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Process Profile[edit]

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

Seems to just be advertising the services of a company that does cognitive testing. There are a few unconnected references that may or may not mention the test. Who knows? Has remained pretty much unimproved since 2011. Famous _dog (c) 11:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 11:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 11:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - info-factoids masking WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:25, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Master[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or our notability guidelines for artists. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. At 31, is career is just beginning. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 10:56, 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, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmet Guides[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined on grounds of article age. Fails WP:NCORP. DrStrauss talk 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one source is the website of company itself failing CORPDEPTH. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 10:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A single location cookbook store out of business ten years? Not notable. Rhadow (talk) 15:15, 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, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoul (2018 film)[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines. Unreleased films that are in principal photography should only have their own article if the production itself is notable. This article does not support notability about the production. (If the film has been in production for more than a year, then it may be in some sort of development hell, and is only notable if that is notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not yet notable and no guarantee that it will be Spiderone 14:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Premature. Maybe resubmit if media picks up on it. Bluehotel (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. Deleting as a PROD via the "soft deletion" criterion. Malinaccier (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Abdulmaguid Nassar[edit]

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

Non-notable deceased engineer. This article reads like a resume (not even like an obituary). Google search turns up no in-depth coverage.

Was tagged for A7, but author removed tag improperly and expanded. Can be taken to AFD now.

References do not check out. Some of the references are dead links, and some of them do not provide information about the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 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 13:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoor Bismil[edit]

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

Just one name-check. Clearly not notable as he fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-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, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 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 13:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Laghari[edit]

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

No notability beyond 'Secretary'. Name-checked as secretary by BBC Urdu and all other sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nashik City Centre Mall[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article written mostly as a promotional piece Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The article was not WP:G11, However I have removed unsourced/ promo contents [13] to address the concerns raised by the nominator. And this can be further improved per WP:ATD. Anoptimistix (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't actually provided any valid reason for keep. Ajf773 (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - Ajf773 Well than Merge and Redirect to Nagpur. Agree ? Anoptimistix (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing really to merge. Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing about this mall to suggest it is inherently worthy of notice. Searches for significant third party coverage do not turn up anything of interest either. Therefore, the mall does not meet the general notability guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia and should be deleted. I do not think the mall is important enough to merge into Nagpur; further, it is not a likely search term for a redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 19:18, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Najam Abbasi[edit]

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

No coverage for him in WP:RS after his death. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 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. Sandstein 12:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AxisB[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. The group has charting history. References are almost entirely not independent from the subject. A search for sources in English and Korean does not yeild significant coverage from third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Please note that the main contributor states she is the Overseas Content Manager for AXB Entertainment, running afoul of WP:COI. ℯ xplicit 07:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG and Band. Just press releases. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:06, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Uloom Amjadia[edit]

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

The organization doesn't seem to pass even the WP:GNG, the most basic rule on notability. There are a few scant mentions of the organization's name as well as individuals associated with it, but nothing further than that. The subject thus lacks sustained coverage in any way. The "unreferenced" tag has remained on the article for two months with no progress made. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eperoton (talk) 22:36, 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) 19:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayala Malls Cloverleaf[edit]

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

Non-notable regional shopping mall lacking non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. 07:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article looks like an advertisement, violating WP:PROMOTION. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article on a mall that does not even yet exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ajf773 (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Nigeria[edit]

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

A spectular list of non notable businesses. Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL Ajf773 (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If an article on list of hotels needs to be deleted then the List of hotels in Lagos should be merged to this one then deleted. There are many notable hotels in Nigeria, many of which have articles on WP. Darreg (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are only six articles for hotels in Nigeria, four in Lagos (the fifth doesn't count as it leads to the hotel chain article). If they don't have articles they don't deserve to be listed. This is not a forum for free advertising for hotels. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

"If they don't have articles they don't deserve to be listed." I agree with this, and this is a completely consistent standard with other lists of this kind. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773 I am trying to avoid replying to comments to my !votes on AFD, but there are some replies I just can't overlook despite trying to. You will be doing me a lot of good if you can read my statements carefully and not present me out of context to favour deletion or twist my rationale to show a lack of understanding of guideline on my path. Never did I insinuate that non notable hotels should be included in the article. I'm not sure of your definition of "many", but in this context I definitely consider anything up to five as many. And an hotel having article on WP before inclusion is never a mandatory prerequisite in a scanty underrepresented article such as this one. A reliable independent source that show significant coverage is enough for now, until the article gets saturated then further filter mechanism can be used on the list such as having an article on WP. I have been working with lists for a considerable time on WP and the guideline of a WP article existing before inclusion was definitely not created to prevent notable articles from being included to lists, rather it was created to prevent vandalism and unnecessary additions to saturated lists, not one such as this. Besides, if I was ignorant of that guideline I wouldn't have added, "many of which have articles on WP" to my entry.

If you think the article contains few notable and many non-notable hotels, then it is perfectly okay if you remove all the hotels lacking a sufficient inline RS. I'm fascinated by buildings and notable structures, so I will def work on this article only if it is kept. History have taught me not to improve articles when an AFD is ongoing, I can't have my work wasted in the bin. My initial statements remain 100% valid, off the top of my head, there is InterContinental Lagos (tallest hotel in West Africa and one of the tallest buildings in Africa), Oriental Hotel, Four Points, Transcorp Hilton, Tinapa Lakeside Hotel, Le Meridien Hotel 2, Ibis Hotel, Renaissance hotel are some of the notable hotels yet to have articles and it will be inline with policy if they are added to the list with ref, even without articles. "runs to my hideout" Darreg (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct difference between buildings and structures and hotels. One are geographic features and the other are businesses. There is clear notability requirements for both WP:GEOFEAT and WP:NCORP. The issue I have is the user of these List of hotels in x as a medium for travel guides or advertising which would fail the WP:NOT policy. We could have an article List of buildings and structures in Nigeria, as per the same lists that exists for other African countries, and appears to be more suitable for listing articles like these. Ajf773 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the advertising issue, I planned on deleting 90% of the present hotels in the article after this AFD is closed. I would have done it now but I don't want to improve articles in an open AFD. Your suggestion on List of buildings and structures in Nigeria is great, something I will consider in the future. There are many great structures here that many people don't know about. Darreg (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where this article ends up (as a keep or no consensus) I proposed merging everything into that new article. Ajf773 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with retaining or a merger. I just need a list article that will accommodate buildings such as this in Nigeria. Darreg (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous commenter, that the List of hotels in Lagos should be expanded to a Nigeria-wide list, as we have very few articles on Nigerian hotels outside that city. As the nominator's argument (contra WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD) appears directed solely at the current state of this list and not on the potential of the list's topic, I don't see this AFD as having any bearing on that development happening. There are only two bluelinks in this current list, so either take that as a WP:TNT of this list before moving the Lagos list to this title, or a merge and redirect of the Lagos list content here, with pruning of all non-bluelink entries and expansion to the rest of Category:Hotels in Nigeria's contents. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Darreg ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darreg. A nation-wide list is sensible. Note, there have been many AFDs about lists of hotels. Sometimes mergers make sense, but note there is a world-wide List of hotels which is certainly valid because hotels exist in the world, and country- and other-level lists are effectively split out from that. Eliminating a national list by deleting it is never appropriate; at worst merging/redirecting to the world-wide list makes sense. --do ncr am 18:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of hotels in Lagos should be merged temporarily into this topic since majority of the listed hotels are Lagos-based. On the other hand, article creator should note that too many redlinks in a "List-of article" tends to make it fail WP:NLIST —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing AFD. The changes Darreg has made to the article no longer reflects the reasons behind the nomination. Ajf773 (talk) 05:19, 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) 19:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M2 macrophages and their role in kidney transplantation[edit]

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

This is an essay, not an article. WP:NOTESSAY — IVORK _Discuss 06:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This material is adequately covered elsewhere. Reads like an essay - possibly an abstract of a term paper - and is of little encyclopaedic value. Andyjsmith (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article details what macrophages are and then only the final section goes into detail about their role in kidney transplantation. If that information belongs somewhere then it's at Kidney transplantation, especially considering how short the section is. However even there the general gist of the subject of immunosuppression is already touched upon and the specifics our section goes into are somewhat unneeded. A short mention of macrophages perhaps. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we still do not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Rehan[edit]

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

not a notable figure. cited sources are not RS. there is some coverage in rabwah.net, however the org is linked with the subject and no RS . Saqib (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also it appears to be a autobiography, given the creator of the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as individual is not notable. Greenbörg (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while his publication seems to be notable in the general complex of Ahmadiyya related media, broadly defined, there is no indication that he as an individual meets notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:01, 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 and redirect to Patari.pk. So Why 13:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patari Haftanama[edit]

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

not a notable record chart. cited sources are not RS. Saqib (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the Patari.pk Weekly Top 20 [14] should be enough to prove this chart exists. Not sure why you have such a problem with Pakistani wikipedia articles and members contributing to this website. If you spent this much energy is reporting sock puppets which are destroying History of Pakistan, then maybe people would take you more seriously. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PAKHIGHWAY: You better comment on content, not on me. I don't know why you think I have got issues with Pakistani articles or contributors. Have you seen me carelessly nominating any other Pakistani article for deletion? anyways, this chart is not notable enough in my opinion to have a standalone page at the moment, so you need to prove otherwise. The article mentions only two sourced at the moment - one is primary and the other one is non-RS which doesn't convey notability. Why don't you take a look at the WP's criteria on Wikipedia:Record charts . --Saqib (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Patari.pk article. Greenbörg (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:29, 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 and redirect to Lifestyle medicine. The consensus was clear to delete. I took the liberty of creating a redirect while closing to make attribution easier. So Why 12:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Culinary coaching[edit]

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

Very obvious self promotion of an academic, and the academic's associated program. Would need to be rewritten from scratch; probably can't b/c this appears to fail GNG with respect to there being independent sources with substantial discussion of this "field". Might deserve a mention in Lifestyle medicine. But not this; this needs to go. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because a page making the claim that "the first evidence of a health related culinary program (i.e. (a) culinary program ... aimed at improving how people eat through home cooking) was in 2001" is obviously talking claptrap. Humans have been teaching other humans to eat more healthily for years beyond reckoning. It sounds like somebody just came up with a new 'buzzphrase' to describe the practice. Famous_dog (c) 06:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment confuses me. The claim is not about "teaching other humans to eat more healthily" for the first time. The claim is about "the first scientific evidence" about whether teaching people to cook improves their health? Are you aware of any scientific evidence on this subject that pre-dates 2001? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your confusion confuses me. The version of the article I reviewed said nothing about "scientific evidence", it simply said "evidence." Famous_dog (c) 10:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can understand that reading. If you dig through the cited source – PMID 26937315, in this case, which User:Doc James will wish to note is a narrative review, and which additionally cites the systematic review PMID 24703245 about this subject – then you'll find that the "evidence" is a 2001 scientific journal article. So they're actually talking about scientific evidence. If it were fiction, we'd complain about the in-universe language. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional (WP:PROMOTION), non-notable (fails WP:GNG, i.e. I can't find mention of it in The Guardian), generic name that is not specific enough to be about a particular person or team. If about a full doctor that is notable enough and their projects, should probably have a separate article about the person. —PaleoNeonate – 08:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My news search is similar to yours. I got a couple of hits at Google News archives, but nothing obviously helpful. OTOH, there seem to be a couple hundred books that use this quoted phrase (but not all of them are this subject; some of them use the phrase to describe advice on how to cook without any connection to health). I think that part of my problem is that it's hard to understand why this should be separate from nutrition counseling. It currently seems like "You had a stroke. You need to eat less salt, so lay off the salty processed foods" (nutrition counseling) and "You had a stroke. You need to eat less salt, so lay off the salty processed foods and here's how to cook with less salt" (culinary coaching) are pretty much just variations on the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that it's confusing, this article made me survey a bit the coverage of various related and somewhat related concepts, like community cooking (I didn't find the exact article for this, if any; cooking a large meal together so everyone can enjoy and/or bring some home), Cooking school, Nutritionist, Nutritionism, Healthy diet, Dietitian)... —Paleo Neonate – 16:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero reviews regarding the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Zero reviews" is not the same thing as "zero notability". Review articles in academic journals are not the sole kind of source that confers notability, or we'd have to delete almost all of our articles about books, films, sports, people, businesses, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting lobbying here, WAID. This page blatantly hypes an academic program, which is in turn a pretty crass repackaging of existing stuff into something sexy and perhaps grant-fundable. This is the kind of thing where I imagine that grant reviewers rejected a grant saying "this is not a thing" and in that scenario this page would be an effort to answer that. (we actually had a distinguished astro-scientist desperate to have a WP article about themselves - they had wanted to be appointed to some board and some board members had actually said "gee you don't even have a WP article.. I don't know....") But this page is clearly a gravitas-building exercise. That is not what WP is for. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coincidentally, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Modification of the last paragraph in the lead, which is an effort to require articles about academics such as your distinguished astro-scientist to be verifiable in WP:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I would like to see this article listed for discussion somewhere where the Food and Drink WikiProject can see it and participate. This may not need to be a medical article. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC) *Another comment - Here's the deal, this topic and article possesses commercial information that is available from minimally-trained people. But training and education is also provided at the University Level from a multitude of graduate schools. In addition, I have found one review article that describes this topic (see the talk page of the article). Another source is from a medical professional society (.org). I have trimmed the article and it is now a stub. Somehow I am not optimistic about this article surviving this deletion discussion, but I will improve as much as possible. I'm pretty sure that is a good faith effort to provide information for readers. It is probably important because readers will benefit from this article so they can differentiate the 'charlatans' from the clinicians. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at WT:FOOD. —Paleo Neonate – 01:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the academic babble and academic self-promotion and written everything this article had to say in plain English. There is no "there" there. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the "generic" idea is a notable and encyclopedic subject, even if the specific individual program might not be.
So it turns out that we've all been searching with the wrong keywords. There are sources for this idea, including some recent ones whose PubMed tags aren't complete. There are multiple such programs (some brand names: ChefMD, Chef Coaching, CHEF program, Healthy Cooking and Lifestyle Center, Food Pantry and Demonstration Kitchen, and The Goldring Center for Culinary Medicine) and no agreement about exactly what to call it (Quotation from the review PMID 26937315: "Proponents of health-related culinary education are suggesting different labels for this area such as "culinary nutrition" or "culinary medicine" (CM). A recent manuscript suggested a definition of CM as "a new evidence-based field in medicine that blends the art of food and cooking with the science of medicine." However, there is still no consensus with regard to terminology, and useful definitions still need to be established by the larger medical and culinary communities.")
It's also important to remember that this is not primarily a "scientific" subject. Notability is not limited to scientific evidence. This subject has been reported in consumer health media (e.g., Scientific American's Consumer Health, aka PMID 27373001) and discussed in opinion or whither-the-future-of-medicine pieces (e.g., PMID 26929967) as well as other sources that describe what it is (e.g., PMID 26035069 and PMID 27366811). Some of these were even cited in the article, before Jytdog blanked most of it.
Dodger67 accepted this from AFC and may wish to comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 26937315 is a review apparently by the person who created this article who yes, appears to be on a campaign to have this neologist wrinkle on nutrition seen as a Shiny New Thing. See Nutrition#Advice_and_guidance. Teaching people how to cook, as well as what to acquire, is part of nutrition advice and guidance, and has been since forever. Per that article. Per this US govt program. Per Sylvester Graham. There is no unique "here" here, topic-wise. Just academic marketing. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup should be redirected to the standard thing. We see many examples of people trying to create a new name for something for which we already have an article under the standard name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - synonyms will need to be added in this topic because there seems to be quite a few. This will take more time than just a few hours to sort through all the material. The article may need to be renamed. I need suggestions on how to reference the commercial entities who claim to provide this training without actually sending readers to their websites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara (WVS) (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you want to name entities. We are not a directory or a HOWTO guide. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:MOVE proposal might be appropriate. If we already had any articles on the general subject, then we could just merge this one into it, and be done. But we don't, so I think the best approach is cleaning up what we've got. WP:Deletion is not clean up, and the general subject is clearly notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is not covered in Nutrition#Advice_and_guidance already. It could just be directed there but even that would just be empowering this exercise in academic marketing. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can see how it's "not covered" in that link because, well, it's not actually covered there? The word cooking doesn't appear anywhere in that section. There is not a single sentence about teaching people to prepare food anywhere in there. "We teach schoolchildren about the USDA's food pyramid" is present, but "We teach sick and at-risk people how to cook" is just not there. Please do provide a direct quotation if I missed it, but I just read every sentence in that entire section, and I did not see a single one that said anything about cooking.

Could this idea be shoe-horned into that 10,000-word-long article? I'm sure it could. But that article ought to be built in summary style, with links out to the {{Main}} articles, and then this content would need to exist on another page anyway, which means that we'd have to create this page all over again. So I see little point in deleting it, especially since the article started off with more than a dozen citations, and it's been demonstrated on this page that the general subject is discussed in multiple books and multiple recent review articles (i.e., exactly the sort that MEDRS approves of as the ideal for claims about scientific evidence).

On a more meta note, when I read comments that dismiss this subject, e.g., as merely an "exercise in academic marketing" (don't you think that a marketing project would have used their trademark instead of a generic, uncapitalized name?), I feel like you are trying to punish an inexperienced editor for starting this page, even if that comes at the cost of getting verifiable information to readers. We can strip promotional language out of an article by editing it. We can broaden an article that mentioned one program by discussing multiple similar programs. But we can't get verifiable information on a notable subject to our readers by deleting everything about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been invited to comment, so I took a good look at the article in its current state; I have no firm opinion about the page's salvagability or otherwise. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment and request -I would like feedback regarding the continual deletion of content from this article. You are welcome to discuss this on its talk page. Primary sources are used to define the topic, which is appropriate. No clinical content is being added at this time. It is getting difficult to improve the article when so much content is being removed. Thank you. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you removed one of the few good refs we have in this diff. About this diff, that was somewhat incorrect. I'll note that the announcement of the pilot webinar for the proposed CME elective says the webinar will be taught by none other than... R. Polak, who as discussed above, does appear to be on a mission to make this a Thing. And as discussed above, that is not what WP is for. There is no difference in policy between abusing Wikipedia to publicize some new medical condition like Retained Blood Syndrome, or to publicize a proposed new medical speciality. WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::Even if Polak is conducting the seminar, the source is a medical society function. Apparently the American College of Preventive Medicine might sponsor an event where an author of a paper is invited to speak. It isn't necessarily Polak who is making this a thing but a professional medical society. I am not understanding why a medical society can't offer education for physicians? In good faith we have to assume that there is sufficient editorial review for all the sources referenced. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm packing up my toys and going home. I fold. I have better things to do. The point is to help readers discern charlatans who aren't trained from the clinicians who are trained. Polak is irrelvant. The exact opposite will happen when this article is deleted and those searching Google will find the charlatans (who am certain also sell herbal remedies) instead of the clinicians. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point -- of all of Wikipedia -- is our mission to communicate accepted knowledge. That's it. We are not a marketing vehicle for anything. There is all kind of content in WP about a healthy diet, nutrition, etc. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't go home, Barbara (WVS). I'm not sure what to do with your article yet. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not written by Barbara; it was written by a brand-new editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lifestyle medicine. It saves the search terms, but doesn't publish original research, yet allows us an easy out, without harming new editors. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A selective merge is a good option. I thought Culinary coaching can be merged to Lifestyle medicine. The AFD does not prevent an editor from mentioning it in the Lifestyle medicine article. QuackGuru (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as mentioned in the nomination, this can be mentioned in lifestyle medicine giving appropriate WEIGHT in the target article relative to other aspects. i have done that. This can be deleted. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what is Culinary coaching from reading one sentence. The text needs to explain what "Culinary coaching" is and mention it by name. That can be done soon or after a redirect and close of the discussion. Giving the appropriate WEIGHT will depend on the quality sources or lack thereof. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"culinary coaching" is not a thing. Somebody came to Wikipedia trying to make it into a thing. That is an abuse of Wikipedia that we have no obligation to follow. Indeed we are obligated to push it out. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source called it "culinary medicine". It is like a new slogan for Lifestyle medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again it is just a rebranding of what nutritionists and organizations like the USDA have done for a very long time. You are citing the chief promoter there. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a new way of marketing what has been around for ages. It was created by an account who only made contributions to one article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am convince that, since it already has been merged by Jytdog, it can be safety deleted. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jytdog's merge. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:08, 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. The arguments for deletion have claimed that the event has only received routine coverage and is not likely to have a lasting effect that would establish notability. The logic here is sound and based in policy. The arguments for keeping the article have directly countered that the attack has received “widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources” and has had continued coverage as the trial of the attacker has gone on. The logic here is also sound and based on policy.

Each side has pointed out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As time has gone on, it does appear that coverage of the attack has continued and expanded. With the addition of these sources, the policy-based consensus has tended toward keeping the article. Furthermore, a sensible compromise has been proposed by BigHaz that at a future date we might be better able to assess the event’s lasting impact and notability. Malinaccier (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Yavneh attack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

2017 Yavneh attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Note article name change to 2017 Yavne attack on 2017-08-15T18:51:55‎

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

WP:NOTNEWS Article about stabbing attack with 1 injury. Received minor international media attention. Suggesting it to be merged into the 2017 Temple Mount crisis article.JBergsma1 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous AfD did not format and can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack. Pinging Nom User:JBergsma1 and TheGracefulSlick. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Twinkle and the AfD logs have me down as the nom. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and redirect - To list of terrorist incidents in August 2017 instead. This is an obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE so the fact we are discussing the possibility of preserving any information is generous. This was a minor incident that, while terribly unfortunate, does not necessitate an article and a WP:RAPID check ("don't rush to create articles") could have saved us a lot of time. In the unlikelihood that this establishes a WP:LASTing impact -- not just "there will be a trial" or "but it's labeled terror" -- then maybe this can re-evaluated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz's argument has convinced me to wait longer for further confirmation that this subject is unnotable. Unfortunately, I also believe the nomination rationale had a few shortcoming and swayed voters to look the other way this time. I'll observe this unnotable incident and revisit it in, say, two months when no major coverage or impact can be established, and WP:RAPID cannot be used as an excuse to keep it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close WP:NPASR A merge suggestion is outside the remit of AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: JBergsma1 was merely offering an alternative for !voters. He does outline a deletion rationale in his opening statement, and a merge can be decided at AfD if there is a consensus for it. If you need dozens of examples of AfDs where the outcome was "merge and redirect", I can happily supply them. Perhaps you could contribute to this AfD discussion instead of requesting an immediate closure with no progress being made?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP stated, "Suggesting it be merged..." That is not a "deletion rationale". I am adding WP:NPASR to my !vote in case the OP agrees with you that a deletion was intended. The OP was advised before posting here that "discussion guidelines" are available, so I suggest that the next nomination he/she take advantage of the community's advice. Unscintillating (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick, Unscintillating I made this nomination when I wasn't aware yet of the possibility to nominate an article for merging, but in my opinion this article still fits the AfD as it is WP:NOTNEWS and received minor coverage as a whole. With my suggestion to merge, I wanted to say that the article either should be deleted or should be merged. I didn't put it down there, so that's my mistake.JBergsma1 (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now that the NOTNEWS was intended as a deletion argument, and the merge as an ATD. I withdraw. Unscintillating (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (regardless of the procedural issues raised by Unscintillating) - there are plenty of sources for this attack which was filmed and widely circulated. Additional coverage following Prime Minister's visit to wounded victim. Still more expected coverage from future trial.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: is your standard for inclusion really that low that you ignore the lack of WP:DIVERSE international coverage, lack of a WP:LASTING impact, lack of coverage outside a regular news cycle, and the trivial mention of the prime minister? If your WP:CRYSTALBALL argument for "expected" (expected according to who -- you?) future coverage of a trial is the best you have, (see WP:ROUTINE) then I strongly recommend you strike your !vote, and create a more thoughtful response in tune with our guidelines, not your own.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of cource, nowhere written that to pass WP:NCRIME an article must have international coverage (although this stabbing attack was covered internationally). What is written is WP:GEOSCOPE: " Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article." i.e., national coverage can suffice to meet GEOSCOPE - and does routinely suffice with WP:NCRIME articles; although, of course, additional indici of notability are also needed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With an 11 day old event - some crystalballing is required. This is a case where waiting - both for article creation and article deletion is warranted. This isn't a trivial mention of the PM - but rather a bedside visit. Coverage of this event was wide in the Israeli news cycle (and the PM visit extended this over the initial coverage, as did the video) and this also got international mentions. At the current level of coverage it passed WP:NCRIME for an 11 day old event. Just because the victim was Israeli is not a reason to set a lower bar for deletion. If I were to vote on this event 6 months hence - my position might change based on the coverage the event receives then.19:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the coverage I see in Hebrew - [15], and this is English - [16]. We even have a mention in Aug 12 following a different stabbing attack. This level of coverage certainly qualifies for NCRIME for an 11 day old event.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I ask that you do not cast aspirations. I never said anything about "lowering the bar" because the victim was Israeli. Do not try to muddy the waters with that shit; there is simply no place for that if you care at all about civil discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't directed at you specifically, I apologize if this was taken so. It is my belief (based on participation in AFD discussions in I/P and non-I/P events) that I/P NCRIME events (and possibly other active conflicts) are more likely to be face merge/redirect/deletion discussions. It is my belief that notability should be applied per the level of coverage regardless of where this occurs.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of terrorist incidents in August 2017. The article fails to establish notability outside of the fact that it took place. No lasting significance or long-term societal impact from this isolated attack. Best covered in an existing list article; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:LASTING it is too early to judge what future coverage will be and the nomination is based purely on speculation that it wont be covered. This article was nominated too quickly per WP:RAPID. - Galatz ^Talk 13:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also WP:CRYSTAL? you're assuming future coverage will occur. LibStar (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This 12 day old event has been received several spurts of coverage in the past 12 days. It hasn't been a single newcycle item. The videos, the fighting back, the extremely critical injury and recovery, politician attention, etc. - has brought this a bit beyond the "normal" attacks. This is the problem with bringing an event that is only a few days old to AFD - you end up judging it by the coverage up until the point.Icewhiz (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: I believe you should read my comments below when I clarified this further. I mentioned view two of WP:DEADLINE, where since there is potential for it that its too soon. In 6 months I might feel differently but right now I dont.

Keep - Per WP:RAPID --Shrike (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Galatz and Shrike and isn't it also wrong to speculate that there will be future sources? We do not wait for subjects to be notable: they either are or are not. Besides, there is nothing WP:RAPID about this; coverage died after two days and the article can easily be recreated from the editing history in the unlikely event it deserves a standalone article. WP:ROUTINE coverage of a trial -- if there is coverage that is -- will not change that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think its premature it say that it died. If you look at Murder of Shelly Dadon you will see that there are huge gaps in the coverage as well, but as the trials move forward it resurfaces. A month after the murder it was gone from the news, but it was back in the news later. I would personally have not created this article yet, but once it is created I think its too premature to delete it.

Additionally WP:RAPID certainly applies as points directly to WP:DEADLINE (I know an essay not a policy, but its what the policy refers to) which states in view two "We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established." Are you telling me that we cannot point to its POTENTIAL significance? That is why it is premature to delete this article until time has proven that there is no potential for significance. And as I said before I would not have created it due to view one, but once it is created, I fall into view two, and feel WP:RAPID applies. - Galatz ^Talk 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perp in custody and victim recovering in hospital; it requires no WP:CRYSTALBALL to see that coverage will continue. Furthermore, well-sourced articles on ideologically-motivated terrorist attacks on civilians in peacetime are routinely kept at Wikipedia: 2017 Notre Dame attack, Louvre machete attack, 2016 Ohio machete attack, 2016 Minto stabbing attack, 2017 Bishop International Airport incident, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, and other, similar attacks in which perp failed to murder his victims. I think that editors arguing delete need to explain why they are judging attacks in Israel by different standards than similar attacks in the U.S., France, Australia, and Britain - many of which were not brought to AFD at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: a quick glance will show no one has argued deletion. This is the second time you have inferred I and others have different standards for Isaerli victims. I ask you to provide diffs to support these claims or redact that portion of the comment as it is a personal attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I made no personal attack on you. As for your other point, er... this is an AfD discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that Slick consistently takes the position that many terrorist attacks in Western countries are minor and should be deleted. One typical Slick comment here: [17].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: and how is that relevant to this discussion? I know you are trying to muddy the waters (as usual) by first insinuating I have some prejudice against Israeli victims then bringing up unrelated comments I made but isn't that a little much to keep an article that is going to be kept regardless of your participation. Even for you?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to clarify that your editing shows no particular bias against terrorist attacks in Israel, rather, you dismiss the notability of terrorist attacks that do not produce mass casualties in general.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a random aside, I do believe there is that feeling on WP. Not saying this discussion fits into that or not, and not accusing anyone of it, just as a statement of fact. For example, the one case that I always remember for the is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Tel Aviv shooting because that was the rationale for nominating. - Galatz ^Talk 19:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page should probably be moved to 2017 Yavne attack attack, consistent with the spelling on Yavne - Galatz ^Talk 13:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I

Moved to 2017 Yavne attack

I left a redirect just so everything is clear, those can be deleted later if we feel that Yavne with a "h" is not a viable search term. I also added a Find Sources template above with the correct spelling. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine crime news. If this event proves in three years or so to stand out from others, it can always be re-created, but we don't keep articles on topics that clearly fail our notability guidelines just in case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of terrorist incidents in August 2017, incident was part of the Temple Mount crisis but is too small in encyclopedic value.JBergsma1 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the coverage seems to have significantly decreased, there are still occasional mentions of it, in addition to the effects that this attack caused (the cutting off of a city to catch the perp). RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a perimeter around a crime scene is standard operating procedure for police forces around the world. At heart this is an isolated incident with minimal human effects and not the slightest inkling of longterm historic importance in the offing... Carrite (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This led to a blockade of Yata next to Hebron, not near Yavne for a few days AFTER the stabber was caught (at the scene itself).Icewhiz (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Until proven that this incident will not have long term affect. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you prove a negative? Carrite (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can prove it if you wait a few months at least before running to Afd. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If no person dies in the attack, then I don't think it reaches the notability threshold. ImTheIP (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NCRIME. The outcome is irrelevant, what's relevant is coverage (even a non-crime such as a runaway bride that received coverage as a crime before being determined as benign, is notable).Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One injured, no dead. No lasting significance to be expected. WP is NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A redirect to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017 also seems suitable. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017. I waited a few days and performed yet another WP:BEFORE search but, as expected, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE has been established. With nothing outside the basic news cycle, this incident falls under WP:NOTNEWS. No WP:LASTING impact has been established in RS and coverage fails WP:DIVERSE as it is mainly localized and mirrored other media reports. The incident also falls short of WP:GEOSCOPE since the crime affected a very small area (the crime scene) and had absolutely no long-term affect on the community itself. According to WP:EVENTCRIT, events, including crimes like these, are often reported by the media but post-analytical sources are what support notability. WP:ROUTINE reports about a future trial, even if everyone's WP:CRYSTALBALLs are working better than usual, do not contribute to notability. I urge editors to stop waiting for non-existent notability and judge the article on the limited coverage available -- as we are supposed to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that redirect on the grounds that detail useful to WP users is necessarily lost in the redirect of a of a well-sourced article. But also that user-friendliness is lost in the redirect of an article to a single list rather than to the multiple lists that enable users to actually find the the info that they are looking for. Moreover, incident has had more than sufficient national and international coverage to meet WP:NCRIME. Note in particular that there has been coverage of the impact on perp's hometown, that perp is in custody so there be a trial; and that the press has followed the recovery of the victim, the heroic-middle-aged-grocery-clerk-fights-off-attack-by-young-terrorist angle makes good copy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already know you oppose a redirect because you voted keep. You are basically voting twice since nothing you said here is extraordinarily different than your original comment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously the attack received international coverage and it is crystallballing to say that it won't further have coverage in future future (these cases do come around especially at sentencing time). Nominate again in a couple of years, we'll see what the record says then. Now, on the issue that "there were no deaths." If this was somehow any sort of standard, then you would have to delete the "Cecil the Lion" article, as: (1) There were no human deaths (2) The courts ruled everyone was innocent: the U.S. hunter, the Zimbabwean hunt guide, etc. I.e, there was never a case at all, only media and mass hysteria. The bottom line is that the current standard is that notability is documented via WP:RS from media and authors and as the Yavne attack has plenty of WP:RS from media, people don't have a foot to stand on to argue for deletion. XavierItzm (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The indictment came down today and lots more information is now coming out about the attack, furthering the WP:LASTING argument - Galatz ^Talk 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And the victim got out of hospital - both gave a spurt of coverage today. An interesting tidbit from the coverage today is that the attacker just came back from an Umrah to Mecca, and according to his confession saw the attack as a religious commandment of Jihdad (as opposed to a secular-nationalist framing).Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you both need to re-read what WP:LASTING is all about. Not that it matters: this will just be yet another AfD that goes to no consensus because enough editors choose to selectively ignore policies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY. Additions to article by editors Icewhiz and Galatz draw on new press coverage to override Carrite's WP:CRYSTALBALL prediction that no "significance" would emerge, and should reduce concerns expressed by Nom and Graceful Slick that sourcing is inadequate to pass WP:NCRIME. It is unusual, perhaps novel, for a Palestinian to visit Mecca and assert that the pilgrimage was made as ideological preparation/inspiration for committing murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To suport the WP:HEY argument, here is the version as of the time of the nomination [18], quiet a difference from the current version - Galatz ^Talk 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017. Thankfully no deaths but also no significant international coverage, as opposed to 2016 Hurghada attack where I voted keep [[19]]. BTW - the ABC.com link just goes to their main page. Other international web sites just reposted the AP report. [[20]]. If more extensive independent international (i.e. non-AP) coverage develops and this attack takes on greater cultural or societal significance for any reason, then this can always be easily restored as long as it's not deleted. WP:CRYSTAL applies. And it appears the most important content has already been merged to that article anyway. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

editor appears to be unaware of international coverage by Press TV, Tasnim News Agency, New York Times, Arab Times and other non-Israeli media including The Jewish Press, and unaware of the fact that national coverage suffices to meet WP:GNG and is sufficient with WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I skimmed the long list of sources from unfamiliar Israeli sites, none of which really offered more than "Palestinian terrorist stabs Israeli worker and is arrested", I admit I did miss the NY Times coverage. But not only is the Times article not specifically about the attack in title or main content, the brief mention comes 22 paragraphs down. An indication of the continuing tensions came on Wednesday when a Palestinian teenager from the West Bank stabbed a supermarket worker in the back in the central Israeli town of Yavne, seriously wounding him, in the kind of attack that has become almost common over the past couple of years. Not only is it incidental coverage, it actually hurts your argument in this context by essentially saying this type of attack is too common to be worthy of its own article. Nonetheless, I did think about the same thing you mention below - that the long list of attacks make it harder to find the one you are looking for, but for that the reader can do a browser in page keyword search. It's better than nothing if the article was deleted altogether, and seems like a fair compromise. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha - just checked the edit history and saw why I missed the Times coverage - you just added it after I voted. Now I don't feel so embarrassed. Calling me out for missing coverage that isn't in the article seems a bit unfair, but I've been bludgeoned worse by others. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more sources to the article that I hope eases your concerns. I added a few UK, Australia and Italy sources to show more international coverage. - Galatz ^Talk 13:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TimTempleton, I ought to have written that, and do apologize. Unless an article at AfD is prima facie k or d, I tend to run my own news search. In this case, I assumed tha there must have been intl. coverage, and added a little of what is out there. Do note that there has been WP:SIGCOV from Iran and Russia - not all of it added to article. International coverage does not begin and end with The AFP, BBC and CNN are not the alpha to omega of the international media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I didn't want my vote to be based on an oversight. This discussion could start a policy initiative so I've come back. I like BigHaz's idea below that we need to come up with some sort of threshold for what is notable or not. I visited WP:NOTNEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." I read most of the English coverage (am not a fan of foreign language sources, since they are just used to show notability and not really add to the user experience - but that's a different hill), and still feel the horrific attack was not something that warrants its own article. As a counterpoint, I found a domestic terrorism incident that was also horrific and also thankfully not fatal, which has not been turned into a dedicated article. Unite the Right rally#August 12 discusses the brutal beating of Deandre Harris by Daniel Borden and five others, but it is a single paragraph in a larger article. I would argue that the Harris beating is at least as noteworthy as the Yavnez stabbing - even the NY Times coverage says Yavnez is all too common. The aftereffects - the Yatta village lockdown - are also considered routine according to the Israeli media coverage.[[21]] So to help out anyone who wants to come up with some consistent guidelines for how to address this and future AfD discussions, perhaps it becomes a checklist, with three criteria that the article has to pass:

1) Is the event unique, either as itself or through its eventual societal/legal/political impact?

2) Is the event covered in detail by more than just local outlets, signifying general interest (national is fine, international is great)?

3) Is the coverage diverse - i.e. not just multiple sources rehashing the same basic facts (as you might find with outlets that recycle AP coverage)?

I think this event fails 1 (as of today), just barely passes 2 and does better with 3. But all 3 should pass. Then the next decision tree is 4) Is the event part of a broader event, such as a sustained series of attacks? Since 4 applies, a merge would make more sense (if 4 didn't it would be a clean delete). I hunted some more to find if there was a more appropriate merge destination than List of terrorist incidents in August 2017 but it's a bit of a hodgepodge. There's Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which ends in 2014 and sends readers to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–2016), but there's nothing specifically for 2017. Absent someone who is willing to create an article for 2017 Israeli-Palestinian terrorist incidents, the only suitable place for a redirect is the aforementioned August 2017 article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen several sources refer to this as part of a series of attacks as part of the 2017 Temple Mount crisis. - Galatz ^Talk 16:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this attack can be linked, that would be an excellent redirect option. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have seen it elsewhere but the NYT article refers to it as part of the continued tensions [22]. - Galatz ^Talk 19:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect because redirecting a notable crime to any single list reduces functionality of Wikipedia because it makes it far more difficult to find what they are looking for. This stand-alone article can be usefully linked from articles and lists about a range of topics, from jihad attacks inspired by self-described piety, to a list of Palestinian terrorists receiving generous pensions form the Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund, to terrorist attacks on Israelis, and probably other articles. Functionality of eliminating detail and reducing usefulness by directing it to a List of terrorist incidents in August 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly I'm going to have to remind you of WP:BLUDGEON yet again. Your keep vote sufficiently tells us you oppose other options yet you have used two additional occasions to express how you oppose a redirect. Let other editors vote. We don't need constant updates reasserting how you are against anything other than keep.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the massive changes to the article since the nomination (28 new sources and 10x more content)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the fact that the article has been considerably expanded and the subject - at least for the present - seems to have achieved a sufficient level of notability. I can't help thinking, though, that it wouldn't be a bad idea either to have a blanket policy of revisiting these AfD-nominated terrorist attacks after a suitable amount of time has elapsed (6 months? Probably more) in order to gauge whether what looks like notability now really is so, particularly when it's easy for an expert to say that "because the attacker did X, this signals a new direction in terrorism", and then nobody else ever does X again. Additionally, I wouldn't mind it one bit if someone more dedicated than I (but less...I'm going to say "involved"...than the two well-known antagonists here) were to have a crack at a subject-specific notability guideline for acts of terror, as there are clearly some passionately-held views (and a passionately-wielded bludgeon, I note, which is a discussion for another time) on both sides and it's sadly not a type of article that's going to cease getting created any time soon. The best I can volunteer for in that regard is a level of neutrality and a preference for clarity, rather than anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the proposals made by BigHaz & Templeton, I would say that WP:NCRIME covers the territory very well; not to mention the disadvantages of entangling notability guidelines with the debate over what constitutes an act of "terrorism".E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that article out. It mirrors somewhat my thoughts above and I had not seen it before. This article fails WP:DIVERSE, and arguably WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely meets DIVERSE - it has been picked up by every Israeli, Jewish, and Palestinian source - as well as several international sources. Regarding DEPTH - there is feature length coverage here in several sources. PERSISTENCE here is tricky due to WP:RAPID - the coverage is sustained from the attack to present (with major coverage this week - following hospital release and indictment) - but still covers a short time span as this is a recent event. Note that in most cases national coverage is enough, and that Israeli/Jewish press do not cover EVERY attack in a persistent manner (most stabbings - die out in terms of coverage within a few days - this one has been ongoing due to the "drama" associated with it (all on film, a victim on death's door, and the attacker's behavior and motivation)).Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect - To list of terrorist incidents in August 2017. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Greenbörg (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think we need a final relist because I see a consensus more for keep than for redirect or merge. NAC,~~ let an admin do it, ~~or give it some more time?~~ Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 00:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:EVENT ."Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Simply being related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict isn't enough to give this "additional enduring significance". Power~enwiki (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really hope the closing admin carefully analyzes the rationales provided here. There may be a slight "lead" (which would only matter if this were a majority vote) in keep votes; however, the case to at the very least redirect this article is supported by accurate takes on our guidelines. Hopefully, they also discount votes that simply say "per above" or "sources indicate notability" as they do not apply any thoughtful rationale for the side those statements support.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- even though substantially expanded, the article content still fails WP:NOTNEWS. For example, the "Aftermath" section contains: "Israel Defense Forces (IDF) forces raided the home of the assailant in the city of Yatta, and arrested his father." This is routine reporting. I fail to see the encyclopedic relevance here; hence my vote is still for a "Redirect" to a list. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chango (EDM)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cnt find valid references about this subject of article on googleMr.ref (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of 3rd party reliable source references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jam and Sunny[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia general notability guideline and film guideline. Cannot find any awards given to show, or news article about it. Tdts5 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOFIXIT case; airs on a national network, available on multiple video providers and disc formats (and it even had a magazine). Look deeper (and a lot of shows never get anything for their mantle; that's not one of our standards for an article). Nate • (chatter) 21:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but if kept, rename to Jim Jam & Sunny. Firstly, this is not a film; it's a TV programme. The correct guideline is WP:TVSHOW, which JJ*&S meets: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on ... a cable television network with a national audience." Secondly, the title needs to be changed: the ampersand is the official name and is critical when searching for sources. Thirdly, I can't find any RSs about it all, nor can I think of any offline sources that are likely to mention it. It's mentioned once in a novel, but that's not enough to suggest it's got the kind of momentum to mean it will be included in future specialist works on children's TV. Fails WP:NPOSSIBLE. Matt's talk 01:37, 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 06:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep completely meet Wikipedia′s lowsMr.ref (talk) 14:36, 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 no consensus. So Why 06:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zhaleh Alamtaj[edit]

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

Not notable Ryanharmany (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem may be one of transcription, as her name appears in a myriad of ways in English. This website states, "She might be called the Emily Dickinson of Persian poetry," and then expands on the name spelling problem:
...apparently Ālam-Tāj Qā'em-Maqāmi is widely know as 'Zhāle' ('dew' -- hence also the title for this collection), a pen-name of her choosing. [Transliteration further complicates and confuses matters: the (US) Library of Congress apparently goes for: ʻĀlamtāj Qāʼimʹmaqāmī (and Zhālah), while alternative Westernized spellings include Alamtaj Ghaemmaghami ..... Unable to deal with all the diacritical marks, Flipkart beautifully (but near-uselessly) lists the book as: Mirror of Dew: The Poetry of Lam-T J Zh Le Q 'Em-Maq Mi.)
Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complexity of the issue, I don't think the nominator does us or himself any favours with the two-word "rationale" ~~and if it doesn't improve I think I might lean towards keep.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not fair, either. I can't find anything to refute the nomination claim, really. So neutral for now, at least. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 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 06:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several sources in Farsi pointing to notability, e.g. this. How many non-notable poets are re-published and celebrated on the 69th anniversary of their death? By the way, Google Translator works fine in Farsi. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this is the same person. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-1rObRhNmGoC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Zhaleh+Alamtaj&source=bl&ots=cVm6k0JcDR&sig=SH6qhLksWbHEjfh3PtwKprcdA2U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV29-8gejVAhUoKsAKHSUPB8cQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q=Zhaleh%20Alamtaj&f=false http://euacademic.org/UploadArticle/1960.pdf (page 6622) http://womenstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_1854_338.html http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674428249 I note the comment about name confusion above. But, at the moment it appears that she is a very significant poet. The page may need editing to fully identify her, but that is not a reason for deletion. Ross-c (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 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 no consensus. So Why 06:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Regis Bal Harbour[edit]

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

Coverage consists of press releases, routine announcements, promotionally worded articles, and a rating of number 136 in USA Today best hotels for 2015. This organization has not received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability per WP:NRV and WP:ORGIN. Has not received non-trivial coverage in mulitple sources independent of the subject; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion per WP:NOTPROMO. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 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 06:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found quite a few online articles either featuring or otherwise nontrivially mentioning this hotel at the Telegraph, the NY Times, Forbes, boston.com, USA Today, and more. While I agree that none of these are reporting anything negative, I wouldn't call them promotional: the content appears to be independent of the hotel, and while it is pretty consistently positive, I would expect (or at least not be terribly surprised by) a relatively new luxury hotel to have at least generally positive reviews. There are also a few other news stories out there as well: [23], [24] for two, in addition to the substantial number of mentions it gets. Cthomas3 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the above sources provided by Cthomas3 indicate is this topic does indeed fail WP:CORPDEPTH. All of these articles are routine coverage; they are routine announcements describing hotel amenities that may or may not be glamorous or opulent. This is not reporting, it is regurgitating ordinary qualities that all hotels have and, in this instance, what all five star hotels have throughout the world. If information such as this is the only thing available in articles then this is not significant coverage even though it is an array of sources. Non-trivial coverage is emphasized in CORDEPTH, WP:SPIP, GNG, ORG, and so on.

Each of these has at most a few paragraphs of mundane, routine, trivial coverage. These seem to be on par with product placement. Also, it has elements of churnalism, where reduced staff and budgets in our present day causes organizations and reporters to reach for promotional materials sent to them via mail, email, fax machine and so on. There is no shoe leather that is used-up by footwork and interviews. We have to look deeper than these article showing up as reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no relevant encyclopedic content is present in the article at the time of this writing. The article is 100% promo and such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Wikipedia is not a travel brochure or free means of promotion, so delete. No objection to recreating if can be done with reliable sources. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews and news coverage found by Cthomas3 (talk · contribs), which demonstrate that The St. Regis Bal Harbour passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, luxury hotel widely covered in upscale reliable, secondary sources for its understated, uber posh style. Keep per W:POSH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable hotel in the present and perhaps even more notable for the site's history: as the Morris Lapidus-designed Americana, this was one of the best known Miami Beach hotels in the '50s through the '70s, and thereafter it continued as the Sheraton Bal Harbour until its 2007 demolition.[25] JFK famously stayed there a few days before his assassination.[26] The article would benefit significantly from the addition of a history section. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- still "Delete"; the content is 100% promotional, as in:

In 2016, ARTIC allocated $35 million in order to add a restaurant, three, four-bedroom suites, and a renovated lobby to the St. Regis Bal Harbour resort!

The rest of the article is the same. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with K.e.coffman. This kind of content is advertising. Also, notability is not inherited from famous people who stayed at the hotel, besides receiving only passing mention in the article(s).

Per WP:INHERITORG:

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Margolies[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 9 years; hopefully we can now resolve whether the issue is WP:NEGLECT or lack of notability. There was in 2008 a proposal to merge it to Wherever You Are (2008 film). As it's not the only film he has worked on, I think this could be a misleading redirect. Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NDIRECTOR having directed a film which has been widely reviewed[27] - although it's known under 2 names, Lifelines and Wherever You Are. For reasons already mentioned mentioned (his other work), a merge/redirect of this article to Wherever You Are (film) may not be helpful. Probably some of the 16 reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes contain information about Margolies that could be used to improve this article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zanai Bhosle[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and advertorially toned WP:BLP of a singer, whose only stated claim of notability is that she appears as a guest vocalist on one single by a band she isn't actually a member of. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NMUSIC by itself, but nothing else here is any stronger -- and the article is referenced to just two newspaper articles which are both barely longer than blurbs, and thus don't constitute substantive coverage for the purposes of getting past WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she accomplishes something noteworthy, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. - Mar11 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all about her grandparents. WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unconfirmable, signs point to a hoax, but at best not notable enough to draw the kind of coverage seen for other such entities. bd2412 T 21:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkiya PG College, Rajesultanpur[edit]

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

This article is about a college for which I cannot verify the existence. The article was created by an editor who has previously placed false / hoax information in articles. This article appears to have been simply copied from RMRS PG College, including the references. According to the status section, this college is 12(b) and 2(f) but the reference link is dead. However, searching on the same site, I found a listing for all 12(b) and 2(f) colleges. It is this pdf. I cannot find this college in the list. The article also claims that the college is affiliated with Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University. The university's web site has a list of affiliated colleges. Looking at the Ambedkar Nagar list, cannot find this college listed. Even if this college exists, I doubt that any of the information in the article is correct or true and WP:TNT would apply if evidence of this college were to actually be found. Whpq (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are similar "Status" sections in articles on multiple colleges, all claiming to have been assessed in April 2011 as Grade B (CGPA 2.17): two of these (SLJB PG College, Ramabai Government Women Post Graduate College) were established in the 1990s, so while the claim cannot be verified (dead link) it is at least credible, but this one and the other identified above were not established until a couple of years after the claimed assessment. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the research by Whpq above and my own observation about replicated text. The repurposing of text and references from pre-existing articles places the article credibility under severe doubt in which case, along with a lack of evidence from Indian media searches, the only safe outcome is erasure. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 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) 19:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tambaram Mudichur road[edit]

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

This subject fails general notability guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate appropriate sourcing but were not successful, save for passing, trivial mentions. Recommending deletion until such time appropriate sourcing is available. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the article to Wikiprojects Indian roads. It maybe more notable as State Highway 48, as per some roads listed at List of state highways in Tamil Nadu. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GEOROAD. Naming all the banks in the street does not provide any notability whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The name is actually conjectural. It seems to be a combination of two roads (which are actually parts of a state highway). See [28].--DreamLinker (talk) 18:26, 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 keep. So Why 12:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kusaba Haisen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:NSCHOLAR. DrStrauss talk 15:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with content from the Japanese version. I can't read Japanese, but from what I can tell using google translate, there are enough sources for an article. Worldcat also shows holdings; try looking for Haisen Kusaba. Mduvekot (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a historical figure born in the 18th century, he's not going to be easy to judge using WP:NSCHOLAR (no h-index for him!). But one strong indication that he is notable is how much he has appeared in published encyclopedias and dictionaries. Here is his entry on Kotobank, which is a database of major Japanese encyclopedias run by the Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's major newspapers. Here alone there are digested entries from six separate encyclopedias published by major publishing houses, including, I might add major word dictionaries (it is like him appearing in Webster's). Here is a list of recent academic articles on him using the CiNii database (a government sponsored academic database that is not complete, by the way). I can't access those now, but it is clear he is a historical figure that is considered notable by other encyclopedias and the scholarly community in Japan. Michitaro (talk) 00:40, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-124b[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NASTRO. No peer-reviewed coverage of this specific object, or of a small number of objects including this system. All coverage is of bulk exoplanet discoveries. No significant popular press coverage. No claims to notability in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish there was significant information about the planet. But the article contains nothing but entries pulled from a table, doesn't need an article for that. The only information not already present under List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft seems to be derived numbers, which probably qualify as WP:OR anyway. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the author of the article I have a few things to say. When I originally made the article I knew it was a somewhat obscure topic, but I made it because if anybody ever needed the information, it would've already been conglomerated into a Wikipedia article. Only one of my sources contained a table which had lots of information and the other 2 citations were to regular webpages. Finally I see no reason why integrating real numbers and statistics into my article from reliable sources that I cited, isn't original research. Besides those reasons, I do somewhat agree with what you said about the List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft but at the same time the list only mentions a handful of the things my article did and doesn't have pictures either. In the future if someone wanted to contribute new information about Kepler-124b to Wikipedia, it would be much easier to add a sentience or 2 to an article then to add a whole new column to a list to less effectively contribute their facts. It's easier to convey complicated information and more of it, if it's written down rather than a table entry. In the future if more, noteworthy information is discovered regarding Kepler-124b an article will be of even more importance. If the article seems bare it's because there is almost no information about the planet online currently, but like I said in the future it's highly likely, there will be more discovered on this topic which offers no reason to delete the article just to have it rewritten.Grapefruit17 (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find this topic interesting enough to edit the article, but unfortunately I couldn't find much more information than was already included. I read through WP:NASTRO and the discussions on the talk page about exoplanets, and the discussion seems somewhat split on whether or not exoplanets are notable in and of themselves. Certainly the first several were, but now that they are becoming more common, some fall on the side of requiring independent coverage (essentially following NASTRO) and others on the side of keeping all exoplanets that meet certain objective observable criteria (no consensus was reached regarding the exact criteria). If pressed for a !vote I would probably err on the side of keeping it, as honestly this is the sort of thing I would probably use Wikipedia to find (being an astronomy nerd since I was a little kid), but I realize that I'm very likely in the minority on this one. Cthomas3 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic itself is quite interesting, it's very difficult to say keep or delete in this case. I use WP a lot to find information which you sometimes can't find on other sites. In this case I love WP as it at least shows some info in one place. I actually prefer to keep it but it's not easy to justify it here.--ClrView (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the article had been put up for deletion I've been checking in on this discussion and the article itself. I recently found that that article had undergone major revisions that in my opinion greatly improved the article. My stance on weather or not the page should be deleted is still the same(keep), but now that it's been edited it seems to be on par in terms of quality with pages not currently on the possible deletion list. Like I said in my previous comment, Wikipedia is often used to find information on obscure things, and in the near future a lot more could be discovered in regards to exoplanets.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Improved or not, the article still has effectively no information that is not already in List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft - in reality, it can't, the information doesn't exist. In addition, there are problems with the references:
- - Open Exoplanet Catalogue is effectively a wiki. Not allowed as a source on Wikipedia.
  - The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia reference is effectively an infobox, information already on the list.
  - Exoplorer is a single-author hobby site. Not allowed as a source on Wikipedia.
  - The Planetary Society has no information about kepler-124b, it's simply fluff about finding exoplanets.

There is only one usable source for the article, and the information it has replicates what is already in the list of exoplanets. There's no point in expanding a line from a table into a full article if we don't have additional information to provide. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wambach[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Holding the national record at a certain age doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 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 06:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete national record at x-age group is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adore (Cashmere Cat song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. No target article to redirect too That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It meets all the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahabAliwadia (talk • contribs) 13:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The song ranked on Belgium Urban, US Billboard Hot 100, and US Digital Songs (Billboard). It most certainly is notable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep - Seriously? It charted in multiple locations. Jdcomix (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NSONG. – electricController 15:53, 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. czar 07:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmira Kulkarni[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Google search turns up the usual vanity hits, but no in-depth coverage. No reliable independent references. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was already A7'd once after being submitted by same originator, but let's give her a chance via the AFD route this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator, the subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article contains 0 (as in: none) encyclopedic prose. We should expect better from Wiki articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 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. So Why 12:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Hawks[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist and designer, whose only stated claim of notability is that she got a project development grant in 2014. This is not based on any reliable source coverage about her -- of the three sources here, two are primary sources and one is a transcript of a Q&A interview on a podcast. As always, every person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she and her work exist -- she must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to verify that she passes WP:CREATIVE for something. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. Delete without prejudice to recreation if more sources become available. It appears that the the movie that the grant was intended to support has now been released. It has received some coverage, including the New York Times, which is a bit "thin". I've added a more substantial source to the article. There might be more sources, I'm still looking. Mduvekot (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Update: struck weak keep. I was unable to find any additional sources. It is probably WP:TOOSOON. Mduvekot (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the NYT article along with the award makes her notable for WP:BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindleReader (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. good nomination, as the artist's notability is not established by diverse reliable sources, nor museum collections, nor significant shows. Sources and notability are thin.104.163.140.99 (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly does not meet any of our guidelines for articles on artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:09, 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. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joburg Giants[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORT. I may be missing some criteria that would allow for a team like this to meet WP guidelines, but how could a team that's never had a professional match be notable enough for it's own WP page? It seems WP:TOOSOON for this team to have it's own page - at the very least additional sources needed to be provided to substantiate claims of notability. Comatmebro (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to T20 Global League and merge the other seven teams too. The league's inaugural season is set to start in November 2017, so notability by then is about as certain as it can be, but until it actually happens the various team articles are not yet substantive enough to exist as separate articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agreed as per Dodger67's points, not crystal ball and all that. There will be enough to kick it off to its own article soon enough Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The league is starting to take shape, with the teams being announced right now. This details the head coach, with other information to come in the near future. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - squads now announced. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as squads are announed and the team is likely to play T20GL. Greenbörg (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Snow Keep as events of the last few days have overtaken the argument for deletion. There has been a lot of recent press coverage of matters relating to the teams in the tournament, such as squad selections, match schedule, and other details. There was always a fairly good chance that notability would firm up before this AFD could close. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 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 no consensus. So Why 12:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Levitsky[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer, based almost entirely on primary sources with very little evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all -- out of 36 footnotes here, literally one of them represents a reliable source writing about her in the third person and even that one's a blurb. No prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be written and sourced properly, but nothing claimed here entitles her to an automatic presumption of notability per WP:AUTHOR just because she exists if the sourcing isn't there. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is still problematic for the reasons stated and needs more referenced detail on her activities as an arts administrator and academic. But there's enough to indicate her significance as a poet. She has received 2 lengthy reviews in Jacket (magazine), one in Hyperallergic, and a short review in Publishers Weekly, as well as mentions (and praise) in New Yorker, Brooklyn Rail, American Reader, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 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 merge to List of Star Wars species (U–Z)#Yuuzhan Vong. So Why 12:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuzhan Vong[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Wikia. Star Wars race not from the movies, but from an expanded universe novel. Entirely unnotable. Sorry ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge. As pointed out, there's a difference between Wikipedia and wikia Pupsbunch (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Wars species (U–Z)#Yuuzhan Vong. I'm seeing little to justify a separate article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Wars species (U–Z)#Yuuzhan Vong per J. Milburn. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Gregory (singer)[edit]

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

Delete or merge with Glenn Gregory. Insufficiently notable in her own right; promotional vibe detected. Quis separabit? 23:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not in any way pass notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 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 12:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi London[edit]

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

nn artist. Tagged 2009 & 2016. No independent in-depth coverage cited. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:26, 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. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppers Stop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

nn business. Nothing changed since the prev Afd: Sources are routine PR coverage Staszek Lem (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Google Books results are providing multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources for this WP:LISTED company. The article does not have a particularly promotional tone at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Consensus can change, but I think the previous AfD discussion is still valid. WP:NEXIST applies here, and as North America points out, the article (while short) seems to be in at least a non-WP:TNT state. Cthomas3 (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable retail chain; supported by sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very famous chain of apparel stores in India. I know it may be hard to understand for others, but Shoppers Stop is a well known brand, just like Pantaloons Fashion & Retail. It was one of the first "mega stores" when the malls started proliferating across India.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[:0-1] "Patrick Stewart Narrating New Documentary 'The Connected Universe'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2017-09-03.

[2] "Vancouver documentary breaks crowdfunding record on Indiegogo". The Globe and Mail. 2015-02-04. Retrieved 2017-09-03.

[1]

[2]