Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 August	8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Amaranto[edit]

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

Private school entirely referenced from primary sources. Seems to qualify for deletion under school outcomes. Preliminary pre-deletion steps were performed with poor results. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are such verifiable sources as this, this and this and this. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Note that, from the guidelines "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." - K-12 schools count as senior high schools, and the institution clearly exists, so... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moral delete, procedural keep: to be honest, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is complete bollocks but it is cited as if it's a policy but with the special aurora surrounding education in terms of notability I'm afraid it should be kept. As the Dalai Lama once said: "learn all the rules so you know how to break them properly." DrStrauss talk 22:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DrStrauss, I'm just checking that you're aware of the update to the wording of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which notes the outcome of this RfC? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Y'all have my apologies for quoting SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I mean..

Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.

vs.

Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.

Heh, it's obvious this "guide" is not intended for human interpretation. My vote is to go by GNG, but not the hill I'm willing to die on. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are worse hills to die on that going down in defense of GNG, but I think the historic consensus between deletionists and inclusionists — automatic kicking out elementary schools and keeping secondary schools — has worked well and saved thousands of editor-hours researching and debating borderline case AfDs. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The cited RfC didn't do anything of the sort. Like all discussions on the subject, it more or less ended in stalemate. Whether we quote OUTCOMES or not, it does not change the precedent of a process that has been firmly established through literally thousands of AfD closures over many years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a secondary school of confirmed existence, in accord with the longstanding consensus at AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Records[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable business per WP:CORP or any other. Notability is not inherited from represented/recorded artists. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable label. While it is true that notability is not inherited, it is important to note the characteristics that make a record label notable, which is namely the material the label releases. Having multiple notable artists is a strong indication of notability for a record label, which is different than inheriting notability. That said, this label does not have multiple notable artists, does not seem to have impacted musical culture in any way by genre impact or length of history. Therefore this is a non-notable label. The references are either all casual mentions, or PR pieces. In particular the USA Today piece is an advertisement, not a newspaper article, pay attention to the email address of the "article" author. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wyndham Lathem[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable (unfortunately, in some ways) person catching (again unfortunate) attention from a crime. Not News. Anmccaff (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable researcher into Yersinia pestis (the Black Death plague) which the article focuses on. One line only given to his alleged crime. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet no one noticed him before he was accused of murder, and his professional colleagues appear to be a vasty sea of red. Whassup with that? Anmccaff (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS "as creator" might be a good thing to mention near "keep." Anmccaff (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being accused of murder does tend to bring one to prominence. There's only one red link in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it tends to bring one notoriety, and these aren't the same thing. The red links aren't in the article...they're in the sources. None of his many colleagues mentioned in six papers, @Xxanthippe: appear to have articles on them that I've found so far. The Stat piece that @Ritchie333: cited has the same problem. So, however true it may be that his work should have merited an article, in practice he's here because he's accused of murdering his boyfriend. BTW, that "accused" part does a real disservice to readers in areas where practical measures are taken to keep stuff low-key while still sub judice; Wiki is very much like the Daily Mail in this regard. Anmccaff (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You used the word accused above first. I used alleged. Neither are used in the article which has one sentence on the subject for exactly the reason you suggest, that it would be wrong to speculate at this stage. I am not interested in the crime, I haven't even read the details. I am interested in his research into the Black Death bacterium and that is what his notability turns on. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Pestis research is your main interest, then why are all those other researchers so missing on Wiki? Nope, this article's presence comes back to crime-driven notoriety. I suppose you can argue this might elevate the average yut searching for blood or dirt about the case, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to give undue attention to one researcher. Anmccaff (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Got one James E. Darnell! Anmccaff (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another! A stub for William [E.] Goldman as Bill Goldman (microbiologist). Think it'll get to 10%? coverage? Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. seven papers with over 100 GS cites passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - it does look like a WP:BLP1E on a first glance, but a search for news sources reveals several (eg: [1], [2]) that have nothing to do with the latest criminal shenannigans. If we can write a balanced article that does not violate WP:BLPCRIME, it should be kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tenured professor who was fired for personal reasons prior to his trial, regardless of his research output.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the creation of the article was spurred by the recent notoriety, he passes various unconnected notability thresholds for academics. There shouldn't be any reason to care about the inspiration for article creation if the resulting article is suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Franklin[edit]

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

All I'm seeing are bit parts. If you look at the articles for the movies that she has appeared in, she doesn't appear in the cast list for any of them, suggesting that she has no roles worth mention here on Wikipedia. Article was prodded, prod tag removed by User:MB298 for no reason that I can understand. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to locate significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, and the subject's roles to date appear to fall short of WP:ENT. gongshow talk 01:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough Socerb102 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article creator just posted on my talk page (here), suggesting that she might be notable as a musician. I'm not convinced. From what I've been able to find, she has a band called Reality something, which doesn't seem to have good third-party coverage. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polymer solution[edit]

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

Useless chemistry stub which provides no actual information and no valid sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Syrenka V (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what appears to be a lot of Gscholar results for "Polymer solution." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a fairly substantial topic in chemistry. The quality of the current article is not a valid reason for deletion. I've added a textbook on the subject to further reading. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea whether a "solution" would count but there is also WP:NCHEM to consider, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Google Scholar reveals page after page of high-quality citations, not to mention the textbook specifically on this topic, already added by StarryGrandma. I've created a section on "Applications", moved some of the existing material there, and added an article about use of polymer solutions in LEDs, and a patent about their use in fracking. The limiting factor is the technicality of the topic; it would take an expert to make optimal use of the material. The answer is to keep the article around so that that can happen — not to delete it.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Teraoka textbook is enough to establish notability of the topic. The lack of information in the article is reason to expand the article, not delete it. ChemNerd (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the article needs to be expanded does not in itself make it eligible for deletion — we don't delete stubs just for being stubs — and with the sources currently listed, it's clear that the subject is notable, even to someone like me for whom chemistry is not my strong suit. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added a citation to another book-length secondary source: the Handbook of polymer solution thermodynamics (Danner and High 1993), although I agree with ChemNerd that Teraoka alone should be enough. I suspect that an actual expert on polymer chemistry with a knack for popular exposition could turn this into a Featured Article. —Syrenka V (talk) 02:56, 14 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 15:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lights Down Low (MAX song)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable item recording / youtube video. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 20:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency-Gurgaon[edit]

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

Unremarkable business - does not pass our notability standards. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; article exists solely to promote the business. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Sunghwan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. Mix of directory sites and blogs, whitepapers to sell services. scope_creep (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, as sources have emerged from the discussion. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeRay Davis[edit]

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

Contested BLPPROD and suggested by another user; person does not have enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG; a simple Twitter post is insufficient. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uh, DeRay Davis is a tenured stand-up comedian with extensive credits in film and television, a current hosting job on VH1, and enough coverage to where I'd say he meets the notability guidelines. The article may not be properly sourced, but that isn't an implicit judgement on his own notability. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: FuriousFreddy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bramma (director)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:FILMMAKER Brand new film directors. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for filmmakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article at this time. Kierzek (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dumi Masilela[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable individual; Google search results indicate most media coverage due to circumstances of his death, i.e. murder. Quis separabit? 22:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MS Antonia Graza (fictional ship)[edit]

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

Ship not notable. Ship only appearing in one movie Ghost Ship (2002 film) A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
MS Antonia Graza (fictional ship) – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted, the ship only appears in a single film (with no indication that there's going to be a sequel after 15 years). The article contains minimal real-world information and includes nothing to establish that the ship has achieved any level of real-world significance, and it seems unlikely to me that it can be improved to the point where notability is no longer a concern. Notability concerns were expressed in the same month the article was created (December 2016) and thus far have not been addressed. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and DonIago's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 23:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 23:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Jaffa to Agripas[edit]

C.a.t.a.m.o.n Dance Group[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)

No real independent coverage for general notability. This article and C.a.t.a.m.o.n Dance Group appear to be a promotional walled garden. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficiently notable. CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as not notable Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burst Studios[edit]

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

Could barely find any mentions in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP as notability is not inherited. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 14 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 Southampton F.C. Under-23s and Academy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton F.C. Reserves & Academy[edit]

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

Kő Cloch (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Southampton F.C. Under-23s and Academy - Much of the content here is already replicated at the aforementioned target article. Merge whatever you can there and then turn this one into a redirect. – Pee Jay 20:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - seems pretty much a duplication of content. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - seems to be the best decision as discussed above. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
M&R as above. Credit to nominator. Not every day someone nominates one of their own creations. ClubOranje^T 08:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Giant Snowman 16:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - as I already proposed in February via the appropriate hatnote. Instead of following that suggestion as I asked them personally to help with via talk page, the creator of the article - Kő Cloch has instead removed that hatnote, attempted unsuccessfully to blank and speedy delete their own work and then added this proposal.

Kő Cloch: I see that you have merged the content of from your article into the Academy article. Apologies for claiming that you hadn't done so (see previous edit) but the format isn't great, in my opinion the Infobox and U23 intro should be at the top of the page instead of near the bottom. But thank you for taking the time to do it. Since the article is yours creation, and you were happy that the content was moved satisfactorily, I don't see why you just didn't turn it into a redirect, which would have meant there was no need for this AFD; as you can see, all the contributors agree with the actions you have already taken, so in this instance I see no reason not to be bold and do the redirect? It could always be reverted if anyone objected. Sorry for claiming you hadn't done what was required - instead it looks like you gave yourself a bit more work than necessary to tidy it up! Crowsus (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. So Why 17:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Wilder[edit]

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

Created by paid editor [3]. Also, no evidence of independent notability, making it fail WP:GNG RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable artist, fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Paid editor created page - WP:COI. Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. Netherzone (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I have gone through this page once, it had little more content which showcased more notability. More over i feel Highsnobiety , BellaNaija , NowThis News articles are well enough to pass notability. I have tagged COI in the page and paid editing is not accepted in wiki unless and otherwise they disclose it . But that is not a measure to delete the page. I will try for some rescue BetterSmile:D (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable news sources, a lot of these look like recycled press releases. In particular, I have no idea what nowreadthisnews.com is (spot the difference, it's not NowThis News) but certainly no reliable source ever seems to have heard of it and their about us page is, well, uninformative. (Although this didn't guide my decision, I speedied a previous version of the page last year. It claimed the subject to be a "Silicon Valley venture capital billionaire" and "guest lecturer at the London School of Economics on cybersecurity" who had become a jewellery designer following a spiritual epiphany. Needless to say there’s, er, not much evidence for any of this. When I challenged it, the editor basically said “yes well, he's clearly very wealthy, billionaire sounds about right, eh?”) So salting might be in order. Blythwood (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : BellaNaija is the top most fashion magazine from Nigeria. With 128th rank in alexa rating. Detailed article about Frank is there in BellaNaija, which cant be concluded as any PR article, Blythwood must explain why he/she feels BellaNaija is not a reliable source. Same for the case of Highsnobiety and BlackBook. Previously created version of the article may be some absurd one, as any one in the world is free to create a wikipedia page, even a madman can go ahead and write anything about a reputed figure , if he has no wikipedia page. So considering the previously created absurd page in the same name is not apt for discussing notability here. I have now gone through the upwork link. As i have created the page, i have to state truth, i have no upwork account and i am not working under anyone's directions. Any top officials of wiki can message me . I am ready to talk to them. I also found that the upwork job posted is still open and no one is hired. So it can be even the nominator who created the job to place the tag. I have no clue for that as well.Any one is free to talk to me on this in my wiki talk page FashionArt (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)FashionArt (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)FashionArt (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)FashionArt (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BellaNaija is not a reliable source because, as stated by the article on it here, it is a blog, and I think that we can all agree that blogs are a reliable source. And besides, that doesn't address the lack of sources otherwise. One source isn't enough to pass our notability criteria in a good number of cases. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment BellaNaija was started as a blog and later became a reputed magazine and is now the top fashion magazine in Nigeria with over 5 lakh subscribers 5lakh About BellaNaija and also the article used as reference in the wiki page is written by BellaNaija staff and not any contributor or blogger. Which proves BellaNaija is a reliable source. Moreover to add on, blogs are also considered reliable sources if the author is reputed in the field of writing. Here RileyBugz states initially one reason for Bellanaija not being a reliable source and later says its a reliable source. According to the nominator RileyBugz , He/she says "BellaNaija is not a reliable source because, as stated by the article on it here" what is stated in the article ??? As proved BellaNaija being a reliable source and articles from Highsnobiety , BlackBook notability is proved FashionArt (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)FashionArt (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erbil Bozkurt[edit]

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

PROD contested by the article's creator who claims the subject meets WP:SPORTBASIC. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played or managed in a fully professional league. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Claims that the subject meets SPOTBASIC are unfounded. All coverage of him is merely routine transfer / match reporting at a ver y local level. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is routine and trivial, fails WP:GNG and not inherently notable under subject sport guidelines. ClubOranje^T 09:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for these articles to be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 MNZ Celje Leagues and cup[edit]

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

Regional fully amateur leagues, fails notability criterias.

I am also nominating the following related pages for same reason:

Snowflake91 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The clubs are eligible for the national cup therefore the leagues are notable. Dougal18 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The leagues have nothing to do with qualification for the national cup, only the winners of the county cups qualifies for the cup. In that case, every league season article, even the 6th division, would be notable because the clubs in 6th division could win the county cup, and therefore the 6th divisions clubs are eligible to qualify, even if they never do. This should follow the standard WP:GNG and not only WP:Football notability, those league seasons easily fails GNG, they are fully amateur competitions with basically no media coverage, except of mentioning the winner at the end of the season. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cups are a qualifying round for the Slovenian Cup. The teams have to face Second Division opposition. The leagues are one of nine at the same regional level. The Koper and Nova Gorica leagues serve a third of the Slovene population. Just because Alvechurch F.C. get some mentions in their local rag and SD Tabor 69 don't shouldn't be enough to delete the article. Dougal18 (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MNZ county cups are not "qualifying rounds" of the national cup, they are separated cups run by the intercommunal football associations (MNZ), and not by the Football Association of Slovenia. But this is really not important anyway because WP:GNG is "above" WP Footy criterias (every article on Wikipedia needs to meet GNG), and this article so easily fails it – basically, you wont find anything about those leagues outside of the competition's official websites. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems like excessive details for regional / local competitions. Most of the clubs involved don't even have articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - low level non-notable regional leagues. Fundamental WP:NOTSTATS issues. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability, minor regional leagues don't merit individual seasons. Giant Snowman 16:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - unnecessary and completely fails GNG Spiderone 16:58, 14 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) 20:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Concert November 4th, 2001[edit]

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

This is not meeting the Wikipedia criteria for a notable music album 1) No signifigant coverage 2) No "Reliable" sources 3) No secondary sources, Seems in violation of 9.1 Self-promotion and publicity Pussandboots (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was never transcluded to a daily log page, and because nominator's removal of the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template was never reverted, the bots never picked this one up. Fixed now. --Finngall ^talk 18:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, there's no evidence that this was self-promotion by anybody — it's simply an article that was perfectly valid at one time, but our standards have tightened up since. When this was first created in 2005, our notability criteria for albums were a lot different than they are now: at that time, any band that was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at all was automatically entitled to spin off a separate article for every album, with no requirement for the album to actually demonstrate any notability claim stronger than "was recorded by a notable band". But those aren't the standards that pertain today: an album now requires much stronger evidence of standalone notability as a separate topic from the band (e.g. charting on a notable record chart, winning or being nominated for a major music award, etc.), and simply being able to verify that it exists is no longer enough. I can fully support, defend and improve this band's studio albums without difficulty — but this, the pre-Love Tara demo cassettes and the EPs, not so much. And I was fanatical about Eric's Trip in their heyday — but the sources required to make this notable enough for a standalone article just aren't there. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Bearcat - while I disagree with the notion of the article being promotional (there's hardly any content present at all, let alone anything of a promotional nature) there doesn't seem to be any sources that help it meet the WP:GNG either. I'd reconsider if new sources are present, but usually low profile live albums like this, where it doesn't even really get much in the way of an actual name, don't get much coverage either. So it seems unlikely. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simms Thomas[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP which fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG. BangJan1999 17:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not finding coverage to meet WP:GNG, and the subject's roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT. gongshow talk 01:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Alluria[edit]

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

Searches turned up virtually nothing on this person. Not even trivial mentions. Even when used the alternate searches of "Aurora Alluria Beauvais" and "Aurora Beauvais". Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough independent sources, even her website doesn't show up. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 18:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kory Stevens[edit]

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

A few notes don't add up to notability. There appear to be no more references than are already noted in the article, and really only one of them, the article from the Herald, is acceptable--but that's just one article in a local paper. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Cannot find the significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. There are references as noted by the nominator, but there is a lack of in-depth coverage and the ones that are do not come from reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if all of the named (but not cited) sources did discuss this company, they are not reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin A. Smith[edit]

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

Badly written, Unsourced BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. BangJan1999 17:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any third-party coverage here. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 01:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 17:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zulkarnain Zakaria (footballer, born 1974)[edit]

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

I couldn't find him on soccerway, in addition to the fact that the mentions I could find of him were from what seems to be a user-generated sort of thing. Overall, the player's existence is in doubt. See also: Zulkarnain Zakaria (referee) RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 17:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks fishy to me on the face of it. Also currently an unsourced BLP. Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per non & Fenix down, looks suspiciously like WP:HOAX. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out my deletion vote per the evidence ClubOranje has shown below, although I am still skeptical of the information displayed in the article. Will need some major cleanup if article is kept. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was previously referenced, one a dead link, the other indicates he is assistant coach. There was a goalkeeper with this name who played for Semen Pedang and is now a goalkeeper coach there so not a Hoax.[4],[5],[6]. These might not all pass WP:RS and I don't read indonesian that well, but they at least prove existence. I am yet to find evidence of Indonesia National team appearances. There is also a legitimate referee (Malaysian, born 1982) who was/is a referee according to soccerway ClubOranje^T 11:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)t[reply]

Add did not play international between 2000 and 2005 according to RSSSF. But they might be futsal appearances looking at one of the previous links. This link from bola.com says he was the main goalkeeper for Semen Pedang. ClubOranje^T 11:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weak delete, because I cannot find evidence he played for the national team, and I can only find him at club level from 2007 and earlier, mostly on the bench. Afaik Indonesia did not have a fully pro league until 2008 and any team lists I found from then on did not include Zakaria So appears to fail WP:FOOTY. There are a number of mentions of him around, but apart from a blog (not RS) most other coverage is passing mention that he is the goalkeeper coach now at Semen Padang, and I don't see it as enough for WP:GNG ClubOranje^T 11:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 17:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further Products[edit]

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

absurd advertisement. 10,000 products? refs are pre pr, as would be expected. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hi DGG: As a comparison, would you consider the Ford Motor Company article to be an "absurd advertisement" too? After all, it has a Sales numbers section listing sales revenues from 1997 to 2016, and also includes sections about Sponsorships and Financial results, the latter with similar information, such as "Ford sold 528,349 F-Series trucks during the year, a 27.7% increase over 2009, out of a total sales of 1.9 million vehicles". Is this absurd too? Why or why not? Of note is that it is important for articles to include a claim of significance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:EINSTEIN DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is important for articles to include a claim of significance; see WP:A7, which is not an essay. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD per national-level coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Barrett, Ruth Shalit (January 19, 2009). "The New Household Product: Cleaning Up With Restaurant Grease". New York.
Knoblauch, Jessica (December 17, 2009). "Entrepreneur creates soap from food grease". Mother Nature Network.
Hickman, Matt (May 23, 2009). "The greasiest candle on the market". Mother Nature Network.
Russo, Maria (February 22, 2011). "Eco-Conscious Entrepreneurs Clean Up with a Soap Business". Entrepreneur.
Keeps, David A. (April 18, 2009). "Pizzeria Mozza's Mario Batali, Further soap team up". Los Angeles Times.
Stephens, Jordan. "Taking it Further". Edible LA.

Modified my !vote above to a comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I looked at the sources above and they're simply rehashed press releases or notices, see:
"soap went on sale in December", "also sell Further to....restaurants owners....", "Dostal use biodiesel on his car", "Twice a month, he'd stop by", "[His wife]....and encouraged her husband", "Production moved from the lab...to a lab....extra-foamy soap....", "Marshall Dostal....taking another step to create Further soap", "He had an explosive problem, he was using the fuel....he would get the grease....turn his waste into by....taking the next level", "He created Further...."I wanted to create a company...., he said....[he] sent his childhood [with] chickens and shoveling coal....[He] extends....gratitude to his family....He and his wife used....[He] and his wife decided to....a fragrance blender....", "Further....give the soap a crisp and clean smell....[He] paired with Mario Batali...."' "gourmet grease...make new Further candles", "[He] hopes the....business model....will expand"

That there was from several of the sources above and they all shared the same PR-basis, and the man's own words were on every paragraph, so the conclusion is that he was behind the "facts", and facts alone cannot satisfy WP:N, since we're WP:Not a newspaper (policy). This is all primary information and cannot satisfy WP:GNG and its audience is not relevant here, since that in fact says we would need still 'independent reliable coverage and the quotes here are clearly not that. WP:NOT is clear in saying listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors and that's no different here at all, since the nomination's "advertisement" statement compliments this relevant policy. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Zppix's evaluation of the sources, and also cannot find anything better. Reyk _YO! 06:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree also, fails GNG. References fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly no great urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. A Train^talk 20:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This journal is a long-standing journal in the relatively new field of computer science education. The Journal is indexed by several highly recognized services in computer science (in which ACM is arguably the top professional organization). The journal has significant coverage in Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search, including journal articles with hundreds of citations. This journal is second in importance only to the top journal in the field, the ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. This information was not available in the original version of the article, and has been added to address the concerns raised. I believe these improvements address both WP:GNG demonstrating coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject and WP:NJournals in that coverage by various Association for Computing Machinery services (ACM is among the most prestigious professional organizations in the field of computer science), demonstrate that it is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as established by reliable sources. The speedy deletion notice itself includes "Scholar" as a way to search for external coverage - a quick search lists over 10,000 hits. (Some of us academics live in Google Scholar. In the field of computer science especially, it is a very important search engine (comparable to some other notable sites that focus more on the humanities, law, etc.) Cypherquest (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says GScholar is not an important tool. So is Google. But for an academic journal being indexed in GScholar (or Microsoft Academic Search) is just as meaningful as my personal Facebook page being "indexed" in Google. And if this is indeed the second journal in its field, then it should be easy to find reliable sources that confirm this. As for all those hits, please see WP:GHITS. This misses WP:NJournals and I'm not even going to start with GNG, which is quite a bit harsher. --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's indexed by ACM, one of the most recognized professional organizations in computer science. Their Digital Library is a significant, reliable, widely-used source for computing science information. A variety of projects are working on improving the coverage of computer science and academic publication articles (e.g., ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems. I think we can ask for more help, rather than requesting deletion. I'll add the compu-journal-stub tag.Cypherquest(talk) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search shows the CCSC conferences get covered by notable institutions including Harvard University, UC San Diego and others - keynote speakers include Program Directors from the National Science Foundation. With SIGs, the journal and the conference are often highly linked (sometimes, the naming is so similar, we've had to rename SIG and Conf in Wikipedia to be consistent. Cypherquest (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a heavy coverage in a number of areas. I think it is probably easily notable from coverage alone. scope_creep (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?? Which coverage? Any links? --Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's an example of third party academic coverage (UCDavis): https://cse.ucsd.edu/about/news/cse-hosts-computer-science-education-conference-uc-san-diego Cypherquest (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but I cannot find any mention of the journal in that link... --Randykitty (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My apologies, I'm not taking time to explain this well for other experts. In computer science, unlike some other academic fields, the conferences are important, and often synonymous with the proceedings. This is just one example of independent coverage of the conference from which the journal proceedings originate.Cypherquest (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that this is not about the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found a number of books referencing different editions of the journal | here, | here etc. More can be found in google books. Maybe this is not a major journal, but it is certainly notable. I have also found some articles on Google scholar that the articles from the journal have been cited | multiple times. Maybe this is not the most important journal out there but it seems notable enough for WP:NJournals.--Wikishagnik (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I can see, some articles published in the journal get cited, but there is no coverage of the journal itself. So we have zero independent sources verifying the notability of this journal. Some citations to a journal are to be expected, but don't make it notable in the sense of NJournals (and even less in the sense of GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Outside the coverage on academic (.edu) sites mentioned above, Computing Now includes a reference in this June 2017 IoT article, alongside references to IEEE publications, Harvard Educational Rev. and others. https://www.computer.org/web/computingnow/archive/iot-for-21st-century-learners-june-2017-introduction.Cypherquest (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's just another in-passing mention, not saying anything about the journal itself. As I have explained several times, some citations to articles in the journal are to be expected and do not indicate notability. What we need is coverage of the journal itself. --Randykitty (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a link to SIGCSE, one of the most widely-recognized professional organizations for computer science education recommending the journal alongside other notable publications in this area: http://sigcse.org/sigcse/resources/publish.^[1] This is a valuable, notable, peer-reviewed scientific journal; deleting the article from Wikipedia seems inconsistent with our standards.Cypherquest (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is indeed a "valuable, notable" journal, there should be sources that confirm this. Apparently it's not valuable or notable enough to get included in any selective database. Including an article on a subject for which notability cannot be shown isn't directly consistent with our standards either... --Randykitty (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ACM SIGCSE is an outstanding source for high-quality research and information in the area of Computer Science Education. The deletion notice (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) lists sources to search to determine notability, which have been very useful as discussed above. An academic administrator might be expecting coverage in Web of Science or Scopus. These are tremendously valuable resources in many fields. WoS covers many (but not all) notable sources in sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities. They are especially good in established areas - but there are limitations in their use as the sole way to establish notability.^[2] These sources are not yet the best gauge for Computer Science Education; not appearing in them is not an indication that a journal is not valuable or notable.^[3]^[4] Cypherquest (talk) 11:08, 15 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 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olushola Ijanusi James[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. A long way from meeting WP:BIO as I'm unable to find any substantial coverage in RS. SmartSE (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography of a company employee. The references are poor and provide no evidence that the subject is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Ahmed Nizamani[edit]

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

doesn't seems to meet WP:GNG. cited sources are not RS. Saqib (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails WP:AUTHOR. No article on Sindhi Wikipedia and also no article on Sindhiana check here. No coverage in WP:RS so fails WP:GNG too. Greenbörg (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghafoor Memon[edit]

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

no notable career. press coverage only name check the subject. Saqib (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he is writer of non-notable books so he doesn't meet WP critera per WP:AUTHOR. No article on Sindhi Wikipedia and also no article on Sindhiana check here. He was namechecked only so fails WP:GNG too. Greenbörg (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of dowagers[edit]

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

Scope of article (listing every widow) is too huge for a sensible article. Widows should be categorized or broken up into smaller lists not listed all on one page. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel; no problem, we can make different lists, any suggestion, please?--Carolus (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a ridiculous list: only Belgium is incomplete and incorrect, and such a list for the Kingdom of Belgium would, in order to be complete, contain thousands of names. Besides, Carolus doesn't dispose of the right sources to make up such a list. Paul Brussel (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel, you can find this ridiculous. But it is good to have a list of these persons, it is usefull. Please: show me a dynamic list that is complete? Only persons that have an article, should be included, that limit the number of people. Sources are not relevant if the article prove that the person became dowager. --Carolus (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that good to have such a list, especially since it is incomplete and wrong? Why do you add persons then that have no articles? Why do you add some one from Mexico under Belgium? Why do you include wrong years? Paul Brussel (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What wrong years? Of course a list is always imcomplete.--Carolus (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before it metastasizes from being small and woefully incomplete to being large and completely unmanageable. An indiscriminate list of widowed nobility would be useless in either state. --Finngall ^talk 18:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but what is your opinion then of Queen dowager?? The same i guess? How much dowagers are there in history? That list is useless too in the same logic you just made.--Carolus (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queens dowager would be more manageable. A relatively complete list could actually be achievable--probably too long to include in the main article, but as an linked "List of" page it should be fine. But does that logic extend to a list of centuries' worth of dowager empresses/queens/princesses/grand duchesses/duchesses/marchionesses/countesses/viscountesses/baronesses/whatever else I may have missed? In every jurisdiction? Especially given that a large number of them (I dare say most) would not be considered notable enough in their own right to merit an article here? I don't think so. --Finngall ^talk 22:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no interests to list every dowager of anyone holding an aristocratic title in the world. Royal dowagers make sense to list, but not other aristocrats. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Brilliantly put by Finngall: "Delete before it metastasizes from being small and woefully incomplete to being large and completely unmanageable." Carrite (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 16:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California Turtle & Tortoise Society[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD due to previous PROD in Oct 2007. It was tagged for lacking notability then and I believe the same is still true today. No sources located to show a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NORG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A very worthy organization, but like the nominator I am unable to find independent sources covering its activities. Maybe someone can come up with something about the conferences and other activities described in the article and in the group's website; so far, at least, I couldn't do so. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep They made it into Wildlife Rehabilitation: A Publication of the Proceedings of the National Wildlife Rehabilitation Symposium, Volume 5~~ Rhadow (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be That Person, but could you explain for the layperson what that document is and how it confers notability per our standards? Was the California Turtle & Tortoise Society a party that attended the symposium (and would therefore be in the index), or was the organization discussed in-depth at the symposium? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one mention in a symposium does not make a local society notable. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Thank you Premeditated Chaos for prodding me to look deeper. California Turtle & Tortoise Club tortoise.org files Form 990. Across town California Turtle & Tortoise Society turtlesociety.org no Form 990 found Rhadow (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Super7 (band). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Elmi Domani[edit]

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

Non-notable actor - does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG PRehse (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything useful into Super7 (band). No reliable sources that can attribute anything in the article, all blogs or tabloids. menaechmi (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Delete and merge" doesn't work because of attribution rules. What is it to be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. I found less than a dozen possible news sources about the subject himself. Bearian (talk)
Merge. It makes sense. Robert G. (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Omar Hayat Mahal. So Why 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Omar Hayat[edit]

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

Not notable. Best, redirect to Omar Hayat Mahal. Greenbörg (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Maile66. Reason: G7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X Factor (denmark season 11)[edit]

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

Quite simply, WP:TOOSOON applies. This article has been repeatedly recreated today, and not at the correct location. It should be at X Factor (Denmark season 11) but that article was redirected some time ago because it is far too early for this. Judges will not even be announced until 10 August, filming will occur much later and the season isn't even scheduled to be aired until some time in 2018. WP:CRYSTAL applies. AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly falls into WP:TOOSOON. When there is solid information known and the article content can actually offer something worth reading (and appropriately sourced), then of course it can be created (with the correct article name), but right now doesn't seem to be the right time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with WP:NPASR. So Why 16:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Pain[edit]

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

Well, I am not sure if this article needs deleted. But there are no sources to validate anything stated in the article. And more importantly, the article appears to be about 3 different subjects. If not deleted, it definitely needs rewritten. blocked sock puppet Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Opinions? Kellymoat (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:TNT and failing to meet WP:GNG. Both bands -- one from New York and another in the U.K. -- have a few passing mentions in sources but not enough to merit an article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note. I'm considering this nomination controversial (in the sense that WP:NOQUORUM does not apply) because it was created by a sockpuppet. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Johnson (ice hockey, born 1974)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless his penchant for penalties makes him notable, there is nothing to support WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG here with only passing mentions about a player in a semi-pro league.18abruce (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scoring goals doesn't presume notability playing in a semi-pro loop. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hall (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, contested PROD. Also appears to be created by the person in question. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. only played in world junior championships. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointlessly and inaccurately de-prodded amateur player who has done nothing to distinguish himself.18abruce (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another of Smartyllama's frankly pointy and disruptive deprods. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Powell (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The "walking on water" part was too much. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 15:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "walking on water" part is obviously vandalism and shouldn't factor in wether the article should be deleted or not. - Dammit_steve (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm well aware of that and it didn't factor in my decision at all. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY for sure. A good test for knowledgeable Australia hockey fans; long time national team member and league MVP. With those credentials either we are missing the sources that provide GNG, or this in a firm indictment of the notability of Australian hockey. The wikipedia page only contains verification of statistics. This blog is the best I could find but perhaps the Melbourne newspapers might have something.18abruce (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Oddy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY LibStar (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 15:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cepeda[edit]

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

The mysterious nature of Cepeda is interesting, but there is insufficient inline citation to verify all the claims that are being made. Three references exist, two are to the missing person's report, the other is to an unsafe site that is a broken link (possibly a hoax). I would say WP:NN and most likely a hoax. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 14:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Pure hoax. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, likely hoax. -KH-1 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The broken link was fixed, and Richie Rich is a myth/legend hometown of Richmond, CA. JasminJaye 17:21, 7 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Ayckbourn[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be particularly notable, cannot find a review of his work other than amateur dramatic productions. woodensuperman (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Path Solutions[edit]

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

Article primarily comprised of copywritten content and left in an unresolved status since 2016 Dsinbound (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. There seems to be article mentions from a source called Bobsguide but I doubt its reliability. — TheMagnificentist 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find anything on Google Search, News, or Books to establish WP:CORPDEPTH. There are many references - mainly mentions - in industry publications as noted on the company website, but nothing I would consider in-depth or a reliable source. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 17:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faith and Desire[edit]

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

In spite of claims in the article to cross-Canada radio play and international distribution of their recordings, I haven't been able to find even one recording or performance review, or any other independently written information, about this band. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 7 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, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually was able to find a handful of hits for this band on a ProQuest search, once I filtered the search to eliminate hits on the generic phrase "faith and desire" as a euphemism for spirituality and religion rather than the name of a rock band — but the hits were all glancing acknowledgements of the band's existence in routine concert listings, not substantive coverage about the band. So the article simply isn't salvageable: there's no substantive reliable source coverage locatable to support it, and bands are not handed a free pass over NMUSIC just because the article makes unsourced and unsourceable claims to passing NMUSIC. And for that matter, Ian Cameron (musician) (the only band member with a standalone BLP separate from the band) may not really qualify for an article either. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:50, 15 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) 20:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoor Afaq[edit]

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

No real-world notability. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Please note that he works in Jang so that is under WP:COI. Also note that article was created by WP:SPA Special:Contributions/Saleemshahzad9. Greenbörg (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 12:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:JOURNALIST. --Saqib (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note to User:Priyanshug728 -- I'd be happy to restore the article as a draft in your userspace if you're confident that it can be improved to state where it would pass the WP:GNG. A Train^talk 20:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urvashi Sahni[edit]

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

Head of a non-notable organisation. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Article is still under construction. Externals sources/citations of independent coverage added. Work spans more areas than single organisation. Priyanshug728

— Priyanshug728 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Delete, per nom. -Aṭlas (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 182.69.120.108 (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Article nominated too soon for deletion.

— 2405:204:A406:4A1D:F526:7F85:8960:4149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

there's no dearth of in-depth independent coverage! Many have been added. A basic search would establish the notability. the person concerned is an important educational reformer in India. Please do not delete the article without searching the web. Else, someone else will later someday have to take the time out to create this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanshug728 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No convincing claim to notability, low citations, filled with OR, SPA-created, etc. This seems to be a vanity or fan-page edited by 5 different SPA accts and an anon whose IP traces to the same city in India as the subject. Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

So, quick question - doesn't, say, recipient of The Elise and Walter A. Haas International Award meet "person has received a highly prestigious award or honor at a national or international level"? Or the number of mentions in google news meet notability? Although, I guess the fan-made bit is true enough...! and yes, I am new to wikipedia. Just want to be clear about criteria here... Initial comment was about absence of in-depth independent coverage of work, so I added those, some old, some new, like coverage from time, nbc news, etc. that was able to find. Thanks for help. Priyanshug728 —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the award to which you refer is not a major award. I concede that it has its own WP page, but it is just an award bestowed by a university. In fact, all the sources supporting that article are weblinks from that university. So, I guess I would change my statement from "not a major award" to "not a notable award", with the corollary that the The Elise and Walter A. Haas International Award should probably go to AfD. Agricola44 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed, no reasonable independent view would consider such an award "highly prestigious". Edwardx (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Makes sense. I just assumed that because many people in that list of recipients had a WP, it was alright to make this one too. Plus I was able to find many articles in press related to work, so thought that should be enough. But what you said makes sense, unless someone can now find a reason to not delete. :| Priyanshug728

Comment. Some of the award winners are clearly highly notable. This does not imply that the award itself, let alone all of its winners, are notable. That would be two steps of indirection and even one is too many. See WP:NOTINHERITED. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a worthy person, but does not attain notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Gul Muhammad Natiq Makrani[edit]

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

Created by single-purpose account. Unremarkable person. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sobia Tahir[edit]

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

Just collection of promotional stuff. No notability whatsoever. Fails WP:ACADEMICS and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Existing sources are primary. — TheMagnificentist 12:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV with no claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publishing stuff is not enough. It has to be noted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Listing in a directory is not enough for WP:GNG and we also don't have evidence of passing any WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Changiz Khan Tariqui[edit]

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

No coverage for this local poet. No coverage on his death in WP:RS. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced and promotional bio, by a blocked sockpuppetry. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 12:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khowar-language poets[edit]

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

Too early to have such list. Two or three names can be covered on parent page. Greenbörg (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. — TheMagnificentist 12:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gurzain (Khowar Poetry)[edit]

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

Published in 2015 but no coverage in WP:RS. Created to promote Khowar Academy. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 12:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a work notable enough to get its own page, the author is knowed criketer (it seems, well it's the link given when you click on it), so maybe add something on the author page instead of crating a whole page for it. Socerb102 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A merger can be discussed elsewhere and probably should involve the disambig page So Why 16:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for Fun[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I could not find reliable sources to prove the notability. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Mhhossein ^talk 11:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. There are sources, but only trivial mentions. — TheMagnificentist 12:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per new sources by Czar. The general term made it difficult for me to look for reliable sources. (updated) 02:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Move to Just for Fun (book) and Redirect to Linus Torvalds as plausible alternative to deletion. Make Just for Fun (disambiguation) the primary topic.

Book reviews:

Valsamidis, Tony. "Red Hats off to a low maintenance son." Times Higher Education Supplement, no. 1575, 2003, p. 28. via Gale

Wayner, Peter (May 1, 2001). "Just for Fun, by Linus Torvalds and David Diamond; Rebel Code, by Glyn Moody". Wired. Retrieved August 9, 2017.

Loney, Matt (April 10, 2001). "Exclusive: Linus Torvalds tells his story". ZDNet. Retrieved August 9, 2017.

blurb: Kanellos, Michael (January 3, 2002). "Linux happened by accident, Torvalds autobiography says". CNET. Retrieved August 9, 2017.

blurb: Rivlin, Gary (November 1, 2003). "Leader of the Free World". Wired. Retrieved August 9, 2017.

blurb: http://archive.arstechnica.com/etc/linux/2003/linux.ars-12032003.html

czar 08:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Czar for the sources. The subject's notable with them. However, I can't withdraw as "delete" is already casted. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can, but the discussion just can't be closed early unless @TheMagnificentist agrees. I still think it would be hard to write a full-featured article with the above sourcing. It would be fine to cover the autobiography in the author's article, though. czar 18:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling the Book Review Index online database was incomplete, so I looked up the physical volume. There are a few more published reviews from the period, but they're short (51–500 words):

Bookpage May 2001, p20
New Scientist v170 May 5, 2001, p45
Newsweek v137 March 19, 2001, p62H
Publishers Weekly v248 April 23, 2001, p60

My recommendation remains the same, but there you have it. If someone were to ever dig up these sources, the book could warrant a separate article, but until we can verify that the older reviews have any useful content, it's best to spin out summary style and merge only then czar 18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Czar's merger proposal. What do you think @TheMagnificentist:? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been part of the conversation, but briefly looking over the sources, czar's recommendation of summarize and merge seems very reasonable and of due weight. --Mark viking (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cosa Meara Company of Irish Dance[edit]

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

Non notable student organisation. Article appears to have originally been promotional in nature. There is no in depth coverage of the organisation, and it now appears to be defunct (no social media activity since 2008 and website dead) so it is unlikely to become notable. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 12:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep (non-admin closure). John from Idegon (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Newman High School (Columbia, South Carolina)[edit]

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

This school does not appear to meet our notability standards. That, and it seems to have some serious CoI and Original Research going on, given the way it's written being similar to an advertisement and citing the school's website as a reliable source. --Rainythunderstorm (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep We have generally held high schools to be notable, and I have found enough sources to write an article on this one. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. I'll find time to fix refs/language. EagleFan (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a secondary school. I removed excessive negative tagging at the top of the article. I left the citation-needed tags within the article, though I don't see the need to question every darn thing about it. If the school website says it is a middle school and a high school, for example, I don't think a better source is needed. --do ncr am 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this high school has been in existence for a long time, and high school articles fulfill a core Wikipedia objective of getting newbies to get some experience editing--they are gateway articles. Abductive (reasoning) 16:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The concerns raised by the nominator could (and were) addressed by editing. No consensus on whether the coverage of his hoax is sufficient to allow him to pass the notability guidelines. So Why 15:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maggard[edit]

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

So there are some discrepancies about Joe Maggard. Specifically him playing Ronald McDonald from 1995 to 2007. While there aren't any real sources backing this it appears that this information is completely wrong, with Jack Doepke being Ronald from 1991-1999 while David Hussey taking the role from 2000-2014. This looks to be an elaborate hoax that has been going on for at least a decade too, with reference to him allegedly being Ronald on Wikipedia back in 2004 GamerPro64 05:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 10:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the fact Maggard may have misled People magazine on his tenure as Ronald McDonald - he was profiled extensively by them and thus passes muster for WP:GNG. Cllgbksr (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're okay with misinformation on Wikipedia? GamerPro64 19:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not for the reason cited by the nominator. Major hoaxes are notable, but his was a pretty minor one. Plus his acting credits are too small to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Ehtesab March[edit]

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

The event doesn't pass WP:NEVENT. A topic should receive in-depth coverage to grant a stand-alone article. Best, merge the useful information covered in WP:RS to the appropriate article. Greenbörg (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 10:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. The article has sources. The deletion nomination suggests the topic should be merged "to the appropriate article"...what merger target article, specifically, is intended? --do ncr am 16:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Thorat[edit]

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

Non-notable indiviual, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail and no sign of passing WP:BIO. A Google news search returns nothing beyond passing mentions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 10:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CRMNEXT[edit]

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

Struggling to find any in-depth independent coverage. Probably fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Started by an SPA, and two other contributing editors are SPAs. At least one "accolade" is a vanity award, so sceptical about the others. Edwardx (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 10:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7th Heaven Remix & Production[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group. I'm unable to locate any coverage about this topic. - TheMagnificentist 09:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 09:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While 7th Heaven are an in-demand production team for remixing tracks by many notable artists, as evidenced by the list included in the article, I'm not sure any of this translates into any substantial detail to warrant a Wikipedia biographical article about them. Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under 14 world records in athletics[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax. Especially if we take into account that the author of the article added himself to the list as a record holder for the "Standing Long Jump" with this as a source. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete World records for under-14's aren't recorded. The closest we get is List of world youth bests in athletics which covers under-18s.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Naranammalpuram. Most plausible option. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 15:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arugankulam[edit]

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

Contains no significant information except direct copy pasted text from external website. ArunPrasanthG (talk) 09:33, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I couldn't find this village's details at India's official census site. But this article tells about a namesake place located in the same district. In fact, there are other news articles which mention this place. This book mentions it as a village. BTW, even if it survives deletion, it will remain a single line stub, as only its district is known. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect article to Tirunelveli district. Orientls (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naranammalpuram which is the larger village encompassing this. Here is what I managed to find

The link by NitinMlk to the article in the Hindu [7] was quite useful for me to find out the name of the village. I will quote the part "One such village is Naranammalpuram, situated five km east of Tirunelveli, on the banks of the Tamiraparani river. The village is named after a queen of the same name of the Nayak dynasty, who gifted the it to Vedic Brahmins over 400 years ago. Originally known as Dhoorva Thadagam (Arugankulam in Tamil), it was inhabited by exponents of the four Vedas and Upanishads, and their contribution to the village society ensured prosperity and cultural harmony. As the river changed its course frequently destroying their homes the villagers moved to a place of higher altitude. They, however, named it also Arugankulam."
There is a mention on the website of Tirunevli district under the name "Naranamalpuram". You can also search "ARUGANKULAM" to find it.
There is not much information available about the village except in blogs or social media. Even the bigger village Naranamalpuram only has 800 houses as I read from [8]. So I can agree to a redirect here.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Kumar Kasturi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 20:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 09:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just 1 cites in GS! WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haqeer Rind[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Only Wikipedia mirror sites are shown in my search for reliable sources on Google. Not even a mention of the topic in reliable sources are found. — TheMagnificentist 08:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some argument about why GNG fails would be welcome. Has anybody looked for sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. There is no evidence of notability per WP:CREATIVE. It's time to put this one to bed. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, I did look but didn't find sources. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfaraz Baig[edit]

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

Non-notable doctor. I have found some mentions here: [9] [10] but don't consider that substantial enough coverage to satisfy WP:BIO as the articles are about cosmetic surgery in general, rather than about this subject. SmartSE (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Failed to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. — TheMagnificentist 12:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although I was critical of several "delete" opinions at the time of my relisting, see my comments of 31 July 2017 below, the balance of opinions now indicates that what we have here in terms of sources is WP:ROUTINE press coverage of one of the many minutiae of American presidential politics, which does not in and of itself warrant a separate article. This also applies to the more recently added Trump effect, which is a sort of disambiguation between the supposed bullying and market effects, but the same arguments apply to that article also. Sandstein 07:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump effect on school bullying[edit]

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

This so-called "Trump effect" on school bullying was part of campaign spin, and never attested by any other study than the SPLC's admittedly anecdotal evidence. Ephemeral notability + attack page = Delete. — JFG ^talk 01:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that this is the second nomination for an article called "Trump effect" but this Trump effect is a different Trump effect. Discussions on the talk page link to multiple articles using "Trump effect" to describe a number of different things but I don't think any of them are particularly notable. This "effect" was a bit of mudslinging that happened at the height of the election but has no long term significance. WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT apply.LM2000 (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per LM2000. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I support Rhododendrites's suggestion below as a consensus opinion. I'm not convinced the SPLC report is notable, but there's no case to delete an article on that written work, which this article basically is currently. As a general term, I still support deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, just another anti-Trump hit piece not suited for this encyclopedia. Beatitudinem (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with optional partial merge to other articles about Trump. I might buy this as an effect of Trump and his gang but not as a single coherent phenomena called the Trump effect, which is what we would need to justify an article of this name. It is no new revelation that elevating big bullies normalises their prejudice and thuggery which makes all the little bullies feel empowered to be more open in their own bullying. We see this throughout history and we see it in many (far too many) contemporary regimes that have thugs for leaders. This is yet another thing that Trump did not invent. So that kills off the name. Is there any argument for just renaming the article? Possibly, but I can't see what that name would be and it would remain a very weak article, which is why we are having this AfD. I'm not deep into the Trump articles, frankly because it is depressing, but I'm sure that we must have something that already covers race relations and social cohesion under Trump? If so, a partial merge there would be a possibility. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beatitudinem. Whether we like Trump or not, we aren't a political action group. Lepricavark (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What matters for whether we delete or keep is whether this is notable or not. So "we aren't a political action group" is actually a reason NOT to delete based on personal opinion of Trum as Beatitudinem is doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename/Rework to be about Trump Effect, the SPLC publication on which this lowercase "effect" is based. I agree that having an article about the "effect" is inappropriate, and would require much more than the SPLC publication and media coverage of that publication. However, that publication itself easily satisfies WP:GNG. Framed as such, it doesn't purport an "effect" but puts forward what the SPLC calls an effect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is clearly the only possible way that this could stand a chance of being kept but I don't think it flies. If this was a published book then it might be OK but it is just a 16 page report and the SPLC produces a lot of reports, many of which also get some RS coverage. We don't have articles about them all any more than we have articles on individual academic papers. So, I don't see any problem for it (or CNN's coverage of it) to be used as a source (and our alternative facts touting friend below can safely be ignored on this) but I really don't see it as a subject in its own right. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was googling things randomly and I came across this. I rarely edit this site but I read at least 20 articles a day. I don't mind if it's recreated but as it is it looks like it was written by CNN, The New York Times or Washington Post. And the article even uses CNN as a source. Wikipedia banned The Daily Mail which has far more accuracy than CNN. CNN has been proven fake news and caught on camera admitting it [11] [12] [13]. Also the radical Communist terrorist and hate group, SPLC, is described in glowingly positive terms like "non-profit Southern Poverty Law Center". This article also largely uses the SPLC as a source. The SPLC is basically Antifa but they use more barratry and libel more than direct violence but there was the #SPLCShooting. The article starts off with some bullshit claim about "school bullying". The real Trump effect is people have more freedom of speech in the USA against political correctness and there's a huge boost in nationalism and the economy. Before Trump, a lot of people thought the USA was doomed. The entire articles is 100% a hit piece against Donald Trump. There is not one positive thing there. Stoodpointt (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per JFG and LM2000. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to something like Harassment post–2016 United States general elections, or maybe Harassment after the conclusion of the 2016 US elections or something like that. In any case, I oppose the status quo and object to flat out deletion. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - widely covered in reliable sources so notable. Whether you like Trump or not is neither here nor there. Open to renaming it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To add, this *should* in fact be renamed since there are several things which have been referred to as "Trump effect".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Merge 'Trump Effect' has been used for way too many different things, and though this does have a fair few sources I think it'd be best off with a more specific title or as a section in something else. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, most of the "Trump effect" articles that I've come across highlight positive things such as economic growth, not nieche articles that try to slander and make Trump look bad, which certain Wikipedia users seem most keen on. Beatitudinem (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. In addition, WP has become a magnet for anti-Trump astroturfing. This unencyclopedic garbage needsto stop. e.g. including this AfD in the "crime-related" deletion discussions. It's just more mud slinging hoping something will stick. --DHeyward (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the addition to the crime discussions was done because some of the harassment inspired could be criminal, not an attempt to say that Trump was himself criminal in this particular respect. Obviously I can't know what other people's intentions are but I don't see this as astroturfing at all. I think we need to Assume Good Faith here. It was most likely a legitimate attempt to encourage a broad range of opinions in this discussion that perhaps went a little too far.

I think you are on strong ground complaining that this is unencyclopaedic but much less so to call it garbage. If we try to forget that this is specifically about Trump and the SPLC, and imagine that it is about some other controversial leader of a large country being reported on by some other widely respected Human Rights organisation but hold on to the facts that it is a 16 page report covering incidents over a short period, and that it received some good RS media coverage but never made headline news, then I think the answer becomes obvious.

This is a very small but relevant part of the overall narrative around Trump. It does not deserve its own article but nor should it be censored completely as a non-notable hit piece either. This subject reminds me of a lot of deleted articles about individual pro-wrestling events, in that these are events that can legitimately be mentioned in relevant articles about pro-wrestling but do not deserve articles of their own. If only this were just another harmless piece of the scripted reality that is pro-wrestling... --DanielRigal (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Even discounting admittedly politically motivated biased comments, it's clear from this discussion that this is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, which I agree. However, since it has been reported on quite a bit, it should definitely be mentioned in the article about the campaign (unsure just where exactly, probably in a new section) per WP:ATD-M. Regards So Why 07:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin's notice: On the face of it we have a majority of opinions requesting deletion, but we also need to weigh the strength of the arguments made in light of Wikipedia policy. The core policy issue here is whether this supposed "Trump effect" has been covered sufficiently by reliable sources to make it notable as described in WP:GNG, or whether this is just a relatively ephemeral news story which we don't aim to cover as a separate article per WP:NOTNEWS. What we do not consider, per WP:NPOV, are the partisan politics of the issue, i.e., whether the media (or Wikipedia) coverage of it is to the benefit or detriment of Donald Trump or other political actors.
In view of this, I must discount the "delete" opinions by Beatitudinem, Lepricavark and Stoodpointt (added: and DHeyward), because they merely object to the article for portraying Trump in a negative light. I must also give little weight to the "delete" opinions by PackMecEng and Power~enwiki because they are of the form "per X", without formulating arguments of their own. What remains are several opinions that make plausible arguments for either retaining, merging or deleting the article, but without a clear consensus emerging. I therefore ask editors to comment on whether merging some of this content somewhere might be acceptable as a possible compromise solution. Sandstein 07:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded on my comment once it was clear this would be controversial. I do still feel that "This "effect" was a bit of mudslinging that happened at the height of the election but has no long term significance." is an accurate summation of my position. Various people appear to be trying to add new topics to this article; I'm not opposed to making it about a specific book but dislike the other proposals. Power~enwiki (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 would seem like a sensible place to merge but that article is already way too full. Given that the most exposure this got was when Clinton mentioned it during the second debate, I'd merging it to United States presidential debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington Universityin St. Louis).LM2000 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge, but rename to something more specific, like "School bullying Trump effect". This is not about just a single report, but about an alleged phenomenon described in the report. The SPLC has published several updates to the report. I've edited the article to reference such an update, from December 16, 2016, which states that it is the fourth such update. On the other hand, there are numerous alleged Trump effects, and the title should distinguish this one from the others.
I've also added a reference to scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal that expands on the implications of (this particular) alleged Trump effect. That article, in turn, is part of a special issue of the journal, specifically on "Public Education in the Age of Trump". Scholarly interest in the SPLC's alleged findings should surprise no one familiar with the history of scholarship on fascism and violence. The SPLC is contributing to a decades-long conversation; charges of ephemerality are completely off base.
It's puzzling why anyone would think the present Wikipedia article was an anti-Trump hit piece. Its opening section on the SPLC report is so critical as to verge on an attempt at debunking the alleged effect. But the notability and interest of the alleged effect is in no way dependent on its validity.
—Syrenka V (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that if, and only if, there were sufficient sources for it. We need to see a bit more than the SPLC following up on it or other people citing them. We need to see other bodies, with the same or preferably greater level of reliability and impact, doing their own research that corroborates this and takes it further. Your additional sources help a little but, on their own, I can't see them justifying a stand-alone article yet. I still think a limited merge is the best option. Of course, it is possible (in fact, it is something I fear is quite likely) that this will be seen as the start of something bigger and more pervasive than just a period of bullying in the election campaign but it is not for us to prejudge the future historical consensus. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:N makes clear, notability does not require any corroboration of the content of a claim, only documentation of interest in, and coverage of, the claim from reliable sources. Reliable sources debunking the claim would establish notability just as effectively as reliable sources corroborating it, or commenting on it in ways that neither establish nor refute it. Astrology is just as notable as astronomy.

As to "not for us to prejudge": WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply to predictions of the level of future interest in a topic from reliable sources. For example, WP:SUSTAINED within WP:N explicitly bases notability decisions on what is "likely" in the future. WP:CRYSTALBALL is only advising us to avoid creating articles on events whose very existence or factual characteristics are a matter of speculation.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and: the Murphy article I added does a great deal more than "citing" the SPLC report, or its December 16, 2016 update. It makes the SPLC reports the centerpiece of a broader discussion, whether or not (in anyone's judgment) it thereby "corroborates" them.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now added a citation to a June 2017 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, entitled "Health effects of dramatic societal events — ramifications of the recent presidential election". Like the Murphy article, this NEJM article does a great deal more than parenthetically cite the SPLC report. The NEJM article places the SPLC report in the context of prior research on the effects of public policy on health.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Against merging: this alleged effect of the Trump campaign on school bullying, like any hotly debated alleged effect of a particularly colorful presidential campaign, is likely to continue to generate specifically focused interest long after the fact, even if it is eventually debunked. Check out Swiftboating for an example. This specific focus on the effect of the Trump campaign on school bullying will not be undermined, but strengthened, by more general scholarly work placing it in the context of, for example, general health effects of public policy. The more scholarly work is done on that general phenomenon, the more intensively the best-known alleged examples of it will be subjected to detailed retrospective scrutiny. Instead of merging, we should be looking to create additional, separate pages like Health effects of public policy, Effects of public policy on hate crimes, and Effects of presidential campaigns on hate crimes, at varying levels of generality.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~Redirect~~ with selective merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. This is a classic case of WP:ROUTINE that fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA : "Routine kinds of news events (including most... political news." The SPLC, a political organization opposed to Republicans and outraged by Trump, published an informal, non-scholarly survey that got a single round of news coverage. Almost no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE; the SPLC's revisiting of the story by releasing a survey "update" in December did not inspire a new round of coverage. The promising-looking citations to later coverage First: Murphy, Jason P. (Winter 2017). "Defending “all this diversity garbage”: multidimensional coalition-building in the age of Trump". Mid-Atlantic Education Review. 5 (1): 12–18. which turns out to be a opinion essay, sort of an op-ed with footnotes, in a non-notable. and Second, this: "The presidential candidacy of Donald Trump appeared to bring further to the surface preexisting hostile attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. In a national (nonrepresentative) survey of 2000 elementary and high school (K–12) teachers, more than half of respondents said that since the 2016 presidential campaign began, many of their students had been “emboldened” to use slurs and name calling and to say bigoted and hostile things about minorities, immigrants, and Muslims." in an article inthe New England Journal of Medicine. I believe this to be a good summary of why this topic is non-notable. This was not a solid piece of survey or of social science research research, the sort of thing that can be impactful as an actual gauge of popular impact or sentiment. It was "nonrepresentative," more or less the same sort of seat-of-the-pants punditry and political advocacy that the whole country has engaged in since Trump began to surge in January 2016. But not a notable one. Just another Trump-related meme to delete or merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh, I got so carried away analyzing the impact of the "nonrepresentative" SPLC surveythat I forgot the main point, which is that "Trump effect" is used for all sorts of things, of which this is by no means the most significant. So we just delete, not redirect. Although if someone wants to boil this down to a couple of sentences and add it to the campaign article or the SPLC article, that could work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory's argument simply ignores the points I made above.

First, both the Murphy article and the NEJM set this alleged Trump effect in the context of other evidence and of historical patterns; neither its significance nor its plausibility rest solely on the evidence of the SPLC report, and it is part of a long-standing line of inquiry. Gregory caricatures their content. The articles themselves are linked above.

Second, neither the interest nor (in Wikipedia's technical sense) the notability of a theoretical claim depends upon the strength of the evidence for its truth; what is needed is evidence of continued interest, particularly context-setting scholarly interest, in the claim.

Third, this alleged Trump effect continues to be covered vigorously in the popular press, and Gregory's "did not inspire a new round of coverage" is blatantly false. Here is an example from Rolling Stone, March 23rd, 2017, and another from Psychology Today, March 30, 2017, and another from U.S. News & World Report from July 7, 2017, and another from CNET from July 11, 2017. Google searches with time restrictions will turn up yet more examples of recent continued coverage; they are not hard to find. In my earlier remarks I focused on scholarly interest and context-setting, but there is a plethora of enduring interest from the popular press as well. (Which of the popular news stories should be added to the article itself is another question.)

—Syrenka V (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's yet another example, from the BBC on November 29, 2016, specifically reporting on the SPLC's post-election updates as well as the original SPLC report.

—Syrenka V (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article is for a well soured, notable topic per WP:GNG. The Delete votes contend the Trump effect isn't real just political, but this contradicts the sources. Rather than delete, provide sources to back up their contentions, and add to the article so it is more balanced. Clearly "trump effect" is in currency and it would be strange, indeed biased, for Wikipedia not to have coverage. The article can cover multiple meanings and uses of Trump effect -- it's also commonly applied to immigrants. -- GreenC 02:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I've also seen it used in connection with the stock market. This is basically an amorphous catch-phrase that will do nothing but generate a coatrack collection of vaguely related phenomena. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's all "trump" it's not unrelated. "Coat rack" means something else. The article would not be nominally about one thing while actually discussing another thing. It would concern multiple senses and meanings of a term, with appropriate WEIGHT, there are many examples on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 14:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In light of Sandstein's relisting and other editors' comments, I wish to re-affirm my nomination for deletion. In addition to this "effect" being anecdotal at best (as confirmed by all sources), it would be undue weight to keep a full article about it. Other things have been loosely called "Trump effect", both supportive and dismissive of Trump (stock market, immigration, job market, foreign policy, Congress, media, etc.); none of those are notable enough for an article about the term "Trump effect" to make sense. — JFG ^talk 10:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is little in WP:NPOV to support page deletion, except in the case of POV forks where another page on the same topic already exists — and much to support the creation of new pages by content forking. WP:NPOV is almost entirely concerned with keeping coverage within each page proportionate to the range of views represented in reliable sources. It is not clear to me that anything in WP:UNDUE or any other section of WP:NPOV could ever justify the deletion of any page on a notable topic without prior existence or subsequent creation of a replacement page on the same topic, nor that the mere existence of a separate page for a notable topic could ever constitute undue weight.

Even WP:ATTACK, which does mandate deletion of attack pages, is careful to note that:

If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place [emphasis added].

So if the topic is notable, even the most blatant attack page should be deleted only to remove its scurrilous history; the page should then be re-created so that NPOV material can continue to be written about its topic. Such a procedure is quite different from the usual deletion without replacement. And even deletion with replacement should only be done if there is no NPOV version to revert to.

If there is no case for page deletion (without a replacement, that is) on the basis of WP:NOT, WP:V, and derivatives of the latter like WP:RS and WP:N, then I don't see that WP:NPOV adds anything. Quite the contrary: WP:NPOV offers creation of a ancillary article entirely on a fringe viewpoint as an acceptable solution to its presence with undue weight in a more general article.

On proportionality within the present article: WP:NPOV dictates that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." This is exactly what the present article does. If there were high-quality published research using probability sampling that refuted the existence of the alleged Trump effect on school bullying, it would need to be included in the article, with greater weight than the SPLC's work based on Nonprobability sampling. Even then, it would not be appropriate to delete the article; in fact, such research refuting the claim would provide further support for its notability. But to my knowledge no such published refutation exists. What does exist is published critique of the methodology of the SPLC study, which is, quite appropriately, given prominent coverage in the present page. Deletion of the present page would actually be a violation of WP:NPOV itself: it would amount to engaging in the dispute that the page merely describes, by taking the side of the SPLC's critics who deny the significance of its work.

Finally, I see no basis whatsoever for JFG's denial that other Trump effects (besides the present one on school bullying) lack the notability to justify separate Wikipedia pages. Quite the contrary, when I was searching for articles on "Trump effect" in Google, I had to add "SPLC" as an additional search term to weed out published reports on other types of Trump effects. Each and every specific Trump effect with ongoing coverage in reliable sources, especially scholarly sources that are predictive of continued research, should have its own Wikipedia page, though none of those pages should be named simply "Trump effect". This one should be renamed to something like "Trump effect on school bullying", and any others that are created should have similarly specific and descriptive names. For just "Trump effect" to be appropriate as an article title, the article's topic would need to be some kind of nontrivial commonality among the various specific Trump effects — and reliable sources would need to be found for such a commonality, or for ongoing disputes about it. That would be more feasible after a number of articles on specific Trump effects had already been created.

—Syrenka V (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Syrenka V: Nowhere in my deletion rationale did I invoke an NPOV violation. The SPLC report is clearly a politically-charged accusation, however Wikipedia's mentioning the study with proper attribution, and well-sourced counter-arguments if any, conforms to our NPOV pillar policy.

To your more substantive argument, if WP:RS can be discovered treating "Trump effect" as an umbrella term encompassing various perceived changes in American society as a result of his candidacy and his presidency, then we should write an article about it. Until such sources exist, such an article would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The present article should be evaluated on its own merits, not on what an hypothetical future article about other subjects could be. — JFG ^talk 17:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I was addressing your reaffirmation in response to relisting, where your principal point was an allegation of undue weight. Any such allegation is a direct invocation of WP:NPOV. As I noted, WP:UNDUE is a section within WP:NPOV; it is not a separate document. And the text of WP:UNDUE makes it clear that undue weight is simply a special case of non-neutrality.

—Syrenka V (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps this is an original essay attempting to amplify a catch phrase in a SPLC report that attempted to garner outside media notice, perhaps it is an imprecise POV titling problem for a real sociological effect that is the subject of multiple independent studies. Certainly either the title needs to change or the article needs to go. Is there a comparable phenomenon in Duterte's Philippines being explored? How about Mussolini's or Burlesconi's Italy? Putin's Russia? A coarsening of dialog and an accentuation of sociopathic behavior under blustering or thuggish national leaderships isn't just a school thing, nor is it just a Donald Trump thing. But it is a thing. So that's my challenge to you — figure out the valid merge target or the new title and tone that will make this topic encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing for sure, the close of the first AfD debate, ending in a redirect to Mode effect, isn't even close to the right solution. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a completely different article that time, nothing to do with this SPLC report. The redirect to Mode Effect was plausibly correct and deletion was the only other sensible alternative given what was being alleged in the article that time. If there is something new called the Trump Effect that overrides that decision then fair enough. I'm just not convinced that the subject this time cuts it either. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the scientific status of the research on the alleged Trump effect: E.M. Gregory's "seat-of-the-pants punditry and political advocacy" and JFG's "anecdotal at best" are fallacious inferences from the use of Nonprobability sampling, which is all that "nonrepresentative" can reasonably be taken to mean in this context. Nonprobability sampling does not render a single study utterly worthless, but it does accentuate the importance of context-setting and fitting the study into the context of ongoing research, which is what the Murphy article and the NEJM article attempt to do; for this reason, JFG's belief that the dismissal of the value of the original SPLC is "confirmed by all sources" involves a fundamental misunderstanding of those sources, both scholarly and popular. Although Gregory does not phrase it exactly the same way, Gregory's remarks reveal the same misunderstanding. Let me quote the opening paragraph of the NEJM article:

A small but growing body of evidence suggests that election campaigns can have both positive and negative effects on health. Campaigns that give voice to the disenfranchised have been shown to have positive but short-term effects on health.

The interest of the NEJM article in the SPLC work is that forms one part of that "growing body of evidence".

—Syrenka V (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Mid-Atlantic Education Review as a source: E.M. Gregory dismisses this source as "non-notable". In the first place, nothing in WP:V or WP:RS or WP:N requires a reliable source to be notable itself. (Even where the source is notable, whether that supports its reliability depends on why it is notable; the National Enquirer is notable but not reliable.) But in judging the status of the Mid-Atlantic Education Review, one should be aware that it is published and sponsored by the Rutgers Graduate School of Education, which in turn is part of Rutgers University. The journal's About page, peer review and editorial policy page, and home page (which currently shows the Special Issue on Public Education in the Age of Trump), are easy to find. The page for the journal on Rutgers's own website was a little harder to locate, but it definitely exists, and it states that:

The Mid-Atlantic Education Review was created through a Goal Advancement Project grant from the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

The journal itself is relatively new, but Rutgers has been around since 1766, and the Graduate School of Education has been around since 1923.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no actual so-called "Trump effect" that has been legitimately studied/analyzed by reliable sources. It is a WP:NOTNEWS story that was written about during the height of the presidential election; it also fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING. The WP:ROUTINE coverage does little to convince me a selective merge is required.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think there is a good merge target out there. This is ultimately a polemical piece rather than analysis of a broad concept that is studied in the literature of academic sociology. Carrite (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite or possibly make a disambig. page The expression seems to be widely used and notable (hence "keep"), but it was used for a couple of different tmeanings [14]. Using same expression or a word for different things is not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the last point. In fact, it's straight from the WP:RELART section of WP:CFORK:

Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term.

The article doesn't need to be rewritten from scratch, just renamed to "Trump effect on school bullying", and improved incrementally like any other page. After renaming, the name "Trump effect" can be made into a disambiguation page if any articles about other types of Trump effects exist, until and unless it can be rewritten as a reliably sourced, non-WP:SYNTH, substantive article about the commonalities among the various Trump effects.

—Syrenka V (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the pervasive role of neutrality issues in arguments for and against deletion:

Undue weight has been alleged by original nominator JFG in his reaffirmation above. Contrary to his later assertion, that allegation is a direct invocation of WP:NPOV, of which WP:UNDUE is a section. But that reaffirmation is by no means the only inappropriate appeal to WP:NPOV in the above arguments for deletion, merely the most direct and blatant one. Likewise, I have argued briefly above that WP:NPOV, far from justifying deletion, actually provides compelling arguments for a keep.

JFG's summary of his case in his original AfD nomination was:

Ephemeral notability + attack page = Delete.

Although WP:ATTACK, unlike WP:UNDUE, is a separate guideline rather than a section within WP:NPOV, non-neutral bias against the target is an essential part of what defines an attack page, as WP:ATTACK makes clear. But in the section "Negative spinout articles" (which I have boldly linked as the shortcut WP:NEGATIVESPIN, though there may be technical problems with the shortcut—I am not familiar with the creation of shortcuts), WP:ATTACK makes it equally clear that negative implications for a page's subject, though necessary to classify it as an attack page, are not sufficient:

When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject.

The page under discussion is not to my knowledge an actual spinout, but prospective merging targets have been rejected on the ground that they are too large already, so much the same consideration applies. As I've already argued above, the present page is not biased; it accurately and proportionately reflects coverage of the topic in reliable sources, scholarly and otherwise.

Even the charge of ephemerality, which in its bare statement does not appeal even indirectly to WP:NPOV, has, in the subsequent discussion, become thoroughly entwined with non-neutrality arguments, because they have been misused to discredit the available sources as unreliable. E.M. Gregory dismisses the scholarly coverage in the Mid-Atlantic Education Review (MAER) as an "opinion essay, sort of an op-ed with footnotes", and—on the basis of the NEJM article—dismisses the SPLC study itself as "more or less the same sort of seat-of-the-pants punditry and political advocacy that the whole country has engaged in since Trump began to surge in January 2016". But reliable sources do not become less reliable when they express opinions of their own. Both the MAER and NEJM articles are clear and candid about the nature of the evidence provided by the SPLC; nevertheless, they draw conclusions from it, together with other scholarship that they cite, to guide their projects (educational policymaking, and healthcare provider response to potential adverse political effects on public health, respectively). The NEJM article even acknowledges candidly that the SPLC sample was "nonrepresentative" in the technical sense that it was a Nonprobability sample; nevertheless, the authors' professional opinion is clearly that, in historical and scientific context, the SPLC's work should be treated quite differently from "seat-of-the-pants punditry and political advocacy".

Here a point from WP:NPOV that I quoted above becomes relevant once more: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." Reliable sources need to be reliable as to the nature of the dispute itself, which both the MAER and the NEJM are, as well as popular news sources like the BBC and CNET. They do not need to be unbiased themselves, nor do they need to prove or "corroborate" the conclusions for which they argue by indisputable, high-quality scientific evidence, in order to be reliable as sources on the state of the dispute.

WP:NPOV actually supports a conclusion of "keep" rather than "delete" for the page under consideration, as it does for WP:NEGATIVESPIN pages in general. There is an asymmetry between keeping and deletion in terms of their effects on neutrality. If a WP:NEGATIVESPIN page is kept, any amount of presently known or subsequently discovered evidence against the alleged phenomenon in question can simply be included in the page. For the present page, methodological critique of the SPLC work is already prominently included. If the supposed Trump effect on school bullying is ever refuted by high-quality research based on probability sampling, so that its nonexistence becomes a matter of scientific fact, that conclusion can simply be recorded in its page. Likewise, if the effect is established by subsequent high-quality research, the page can be updated to describe its topic as a fact rather than a dispute. But if the page is deleted, the arguments not only for the final conclusion, but for the significance of the dispute itself, are effectively censored, in that only more general pages (like that on the Trump campaign of 2016) can be used, and they have severe space limitations. Deletion of this page would amount effectively to endorsement of opinions like those expressed by E.M. Gregory, which would be a violation of WP:NPOV.

WP:NPOV is a core and non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, which takes priority over consensus. For that reason, the page here under consideration should not merely be kept; if no better arguments for deletion than the above litany of misuses of WP:NPOV can be found, it should (after renaming to a more specific title) be kept with prejudice, in a way that removes it from the AfD process. In effect, what should be done is the reverse of salting the earth; something that does for "keep" what WP:SALT does for "delete". If no such procedure exists, one should be created.

—Syrenka V (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Syrenka V: you have expressed your opinion and listed policy after policy on this AfD several times but have you heard of WP:BLUDGEON? You have stated your view on the article; now let other editors do the same without being obstructed by walls of text most people will not read.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged revisiting and sticking with delete on the I grounds laid out above, the that the SPLC's assertion has not received scholarly validation, nor has it gotten sufficient coverage as an article or an idea to pass WP:GNG. If someone were to gather up the several Trump effects that have been proposed by sundry pundits and journalists into a single article, that might be notable. But at this point we do seem to have something of a consensus that there is no appropriate target for a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unchanged. Arguments that the SPLC's report is just part of a larger story on political movements and their effects on children aren't doing it for me. That's WP:OTHERSTUFF, their report is still not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since almost no one seems to like the original name of the article I've went ahead and moved it to Trump effect on school bullying. That way people can focus on the article itself rather than the naming issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the mainpage called Trump effect. I had an edit conflict. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: I've edited the article under consideration to include a fifth update by SPLC from February 10, 2017, which announces the SPLC's new collaboration with investigative journalism website ProPublica, as well as a report from two ProPublica journalists from November 15, 2016, expressing agreement with the post-election SPLC reports as a matter of opinion, but lamenting the difficulty in finding data for rigorous, quantitative evaluation of such reports. I've also cited ProPublica's own page on the collaboration, known as Documenting Hate, which references the SPLC's work in explaining the motivation for the collaboration. ProPublica also cites numerous other participants in the collaboration (currently 92!), including four schools of journalism, one school of law, and numerous major news organizations.

The Documenting Hate collaboration deserves a page of its own, which is why I've redlinked it. There is an enormous amount of news coverage in reliable sources, though "independent of its subject" may be a problem, for the simple reason that news organizations that publish stories about the project almost always seem to join it! This from the New York Times on January 17, 2017, which also specifically refers to the SPLC's work as a motivation for the project, is typical. The New York Times also continues to publish stories that follow up both on the original SPLC work and on the Documenting Hate collaboration, like this from June 1, 2017.

In view of continuing coverage not only in individual new stories (such as I had already documented several days ago, and have further documented here), but also in an entire massive project involving collaboration among over 90 organizations, I ask the closing admin to discount all deletion arguments based on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTNEWS, and similar.

—Syrenka V (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been renamed to Trump effect on school bullying because the article is about a report on schoolyard bullying. The sources you've provided are about hate crimes in general, not school bullying. You cannot drop a couple of primary sources and one op-ed about a different subject and then argue all deletion votes should be discounted. This article has a very specific scope, some keep votes are broadening the scope to include WP:OTHERSTUFF to argue notability. Also, see WP:BLUDGEON.LM2000 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:N or any other relevant guideline says that continued coverage has to be limited to the specific topic under consideration. Of course many of the considerations involved in bias-related school bullying, such as the difficulty in finding reliable data, apply to hate crimes in general, which is why the SPLC report has led directly to a wider project on hate crime documentation—and why the SPLC report continues to be cited, and detailed information specifically about school bullying continues to be enumerated, in news stories about hate crimes in general, like the one from the New York Times on June 1, 2017, which I cited above. Even in cases where there is no such detailed enumeration, use of information from the SPLC report to support a point about hate crimes in general amounts to use of school bullying as an example to support a generalization about the wider topic.

WP:OTHERSTUFF (which in any case is not authoritative) isn't even relevant to cases of a topic being covered within a story about a wider topic. It's about analogizing arguments of the form "We have a page on X, so we have to allow a page on Y" (or "We deleted the page about X, so we have to delete the page about Y").

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump effect on school bullying" is a topic that may fall within the scope of many other wider topics, such as a rise in hate crimes, but independent notability has to be established. Many of the (mostly WP:PRIMARY) sources you've provided don't even explicitly mention the alleged trend. It's a novel interpretation of WP:SIGCOV to suggest that one subject is notable because it's related to one which receives significant coverage. Actually, that's the definition of WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 04:27, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, wow!, article word count around 950 words and 5mins to read, afd around 7600 words and 40mins to read. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cllgbksr (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: I have added the newly created disambiguation article Trump effect above. !votes prior to this point may only apply to the main article, whatever it is called these days. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already !voted delete on the main article so this is just to say Delete the unnecessary disambiguation page too. A disambiguation page with only one linked article entry is clearly invalid. Soon it will probably have zero linked article entries. I see little chance that it will ever have more than one, if that. If we ever do have two articles about actual notable things called "Trump effect" then it can legitimately be recreated then. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – The overview article is useless until there's actually something to disambiguate or write about. Plus, it was created out of process in the middle of the AfD. Trout ready. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent stories on the trump effect: Multiple definitions of a so-called “Trump Effect” have emerged over the past 18 months or so, attributed to everything from stock-market gains to reports of increases in bullying and incidents of racial and religious-based hate crimes. The Atlantic published today and HR and leadership experts say a “Trump effect” has made a new norm of bad behavior, from dropping f-bombs to fudging details on resumes to spreading false rumors about co-workers, all of which stifles teamwork, dampens morale, and hurts productivity. NBC published today - there has been plenty published over the last year linking Trump and his campaign and the way the actions been covered with changes in people's behavior to support some type of article, but I think linking the name "Trump Effect" specifically to bullying in school is not appropriate yet as a reflection of the term being consolidated into a specific area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will draftify upon request. So Why 15:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kimetsu no yaiba[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources for this manga. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The full name of this series is Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba which is mentioned at Anime News Network: [15]. Looking more into it, I quickly found a review by Chris Beveridge which is a good start. [16][17] (vetting). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my opinion to Delete per WP:TOOSOON, the series is set to be released in English in 2018. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some sources but their significance and reliability can be questioned. The rest are trivial mentions. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 08:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Draftify There isn't much coverage about it yet in English or Japanese, but what exists does seem promising (like the reviews), perhaps enough to establish notability. Otherwise, perhaps draftifying until 2018 (when it's released in English) could work as an alternative. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Weaver[edit]

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

Psychotherpist with no real evidence of notability beyond self-published sources and coverage by the expected professional bodies and organisations promoting psychotherapy and NLP. He appears to have been mentioned by a lifestyle columnist in the Daily Mail about ten years ago, but this newspaper was recently classified as an unreliable source by Wikipedians. What we're left with is an article for a psychotherapist who had a moderately notable client (who writes about spa treatments for a right-wing tabloid) a while back and was involved with the AIDS helpline thirty years ago. Famous _dog (c) 06:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Failed to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. Daily Mail is not a reliable source as discussed in WP:RSN. — TheMagnificentist 12:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Abbas Khan[edit]

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

minor roles in TV programmes. doesn't seems to pass WP:ACTORS. Saqib (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Failed to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. — TheMagnificentist 13:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of minor roles do not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Force[edit]

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

There is insufficient notability for the game to be an article at this time. I could only find one article at Polygon about the game. It fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karam 2017 ( film)[edit]

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

No independent references. No indication as to notability. Google search finds very little other than IMDB entry.

The state of this article, which needs very heavy copy-editing, indicates a lack of attention to preparing this article, maybe because it is purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkL6l4R1-mM&feature=youtu.be]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunil dhakare (talk • contribs) 07:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Several indicators that the editor has WP:COI. All sources are self-published and some doesn't even link to the correct place. Couldn't find anything about the short film other than self-published stuff, so doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Article looks like a rush job. No real effort to even put capital letters. Seems like a promo. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Created by the director himself. Non notable short film. Jupitus Smart 15:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: creator keeps removing AfD and adding promo. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Coverage in independent reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 17:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Caspar WÜSTER[edit]

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

This article violates the basic principal that Wikipedia is not a geneaological site. I have done enough geneology to recognize the work of a geneologist, and this article is clearly such. To make matters worse it contains original research, drawing on statements from an unpublished manuscript. Lastly there is just no clear claim to notability for Wuster. His son might squeak by on the grounds he was the central subject of a book published by the Pennsylvania State University Press, but Hans Caspar Wuster has no claim to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely unencyclopedic and subject is non-notable. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 07:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My first question on seeing a biographical article listed for deletion is "What does/did the subject do to make themselves encyclopedic?" In this instance, I'm still asking myself that question. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hammond[edit]

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

Former city council member. I wasn't able to find any in-depth articles, though perhaps some existed in the late 1990s or early 2000s which are not showing up online. At least based on what I was able to find in my searching, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local politician. Lost primaries in both bids for state office. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.-Umair Aj (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sacramento is not in the highly rarefied class of global cities that can hand their city councillors an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL just for existing. It's certainly large enough that city councillors might still be eligible to have articles if they can be reliably sourced over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but that hasn't been shown here as there's only one actual reference besides her own self-published primary sources about herself. And no, neither being the first member of an underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable office, nor being a non-winning candidate for election to the state legislature, automatically makes her a special case in the absence of enough press coverage to be deemed notable for her city council work itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning MultiCom[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows notability per WP:CORP SL93 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GenVec[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing routine coverage and passing mentions in news and directory listings and passing mentions in books. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, as this company received fleeting news coverage for the DOJ case implicating it and its subsequent bankruptcy. Not finding much coverage about the company that is not about these matters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HempMeds[edit]

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

Source searches are not providing enough coverage to meet the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:12, 15 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 15:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TOKU-E[edit]

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

While this company seems like it would be notable per Wikipedia's standards, source searches are not demonstrating that WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH are met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads too much like a press release.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AKD Investment[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I find references that prove it exists, but nothing in-depth to establish notability. Searched Google, Google Books, and Google News. CNMall41 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(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)
Delete Lacks Corporate Depth and Notability. It merely serves the creation as Wikipedia Profile. Light2021 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of contributions implies that the time spent in developing this analysis and preparing the text was 129 seconds. Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hardly a refute of a keep vote. An analysis of your recent edits shows you have been adding such non constructive edits to AfD discussions. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP . Mainly primary sources or PR releases supplied in article. Same in gnews. I'm guessing someone will just refute this on the basis of the seconds I took to write this. LibStar (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. The content is 100% advertorial and should be excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biota Holdings[edit]

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

Per source searches, this company does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial claims of notability. Company no longer exists under this name. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Biopharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Available news sources in various internet searches are largely promotional press releases, routine coverage and passing mentions, and book sources are only providing passing mentions and directory listings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial claims of notability -- only apparent product failed during drug trials. Company no longer exists under this name. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Kohlsachs[edit]

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

Appears to be fake, or at least his accomplishments grossly exaggerated. According to baseball-reference.com nobody named Sidney Kohlsachs has played Major League Baseball. All citations in the article, either don't work or just link to the site's homepage with no mention of Mr. Kohlsachs.Canuck85 (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search turns up several mentions of his involvement in the Siege of Bastogne and many of them mention him being a former baseball player.. but the details are confused as one search says he played in one game and another says he played in two. Can't find any mention of him in baseball stats sites so its possible that he played instead for a Reds farm team though i cant verify that either. Without a better source i'm gonna have to side with deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At current sourcing level. It might be possible sources exist under a different name/spelling - however I haven't been able to find any, and most refs here are dead or of little use. I'll note that story described doesn't really add up - Attack on Pearl Harbor was in December 1941. Kohlsachs supposedly played in Sep 1940 - and then left to enlist in the army to fight in WWII - however the army only really began enlisting (and particularly up and coming baseball players) in Dec 1941 - a whole season+ away..... This inconsistency seems to increase the probability of a hoax.Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Icewhiz, this story doesn't add up. I checked Retrosheet for every Reds box score for Sep. 21 from 1940 to 1946 (just in case maybe his debut was really in 1941 or 1942 and the 1940 was just a typo, and of course his 2nd game should have bee Sep. 21 1945 or 1946), and there is no "Kohlsachs" in any of them. And he would have been 16 years old in 1940. Maybe there was really a soldier by this name who played baseball at some (semi pro?) level, as mentioned in the Anthony McAuliffe article. But even if that was the case, that doesn't warrant a separate article on Kohlsachs. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. No entry for this name on BBRef, image appears to be a hijacked image of Reds' pitcher Bucky Walters [18]. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the pic for deletion on Commons. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As hoax. None of the references check out, and the image is of another player. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on the evidence presented it seems pretty clear that this is a blatant hoax. I'm attempting to have it speedy deleted on that basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EarthCheck[edit]

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

Also nominating this related page, which reads like an advertisement. If kept, should be merged.

And also nominating this page, which seems like a duplicate of the previous one:

There doesn't seem to be much out there about EarthCheck other than from their clients. Vectro (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Because this is a certification for municipalities and other governmental units, the "clients" Vectro referred to above are doing things like putting it on road signs. See, for instance, this sign (in a stock photo found on Google, but I saw this sign last week). It's also been discussed in academic sustainability literature, for example here. Seems to me that it meets notability criteria, and moreover is the kind of thing people may wish usefully to look up in an encyclopedia. Krinsky (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC) [Update to clarify in light of re-listing: This is a "Keep" vote for EarthCheck. Merging the others seems sensible. Krinsky (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I change my mind based on the arguments below. Wikipedia can wait. (non-admin closure) — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange Court[edit]

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

Hard to find WP:RS online. Also, WP:CRYSTAL. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Largest building in a city of 1/4 million people. Look a the picture. Arguing "crystal ball" is to suggest it won't get built. Nothing gets built that far and not finished. --do ncr am 04:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - as noted above, when complete it'll be the tallest building in a highly populated city. It's presently around 50% complete so a bit beyond the fantasy speculation suggested by the nominator. Sometimes, notability is established on a local level and this, given the size, will no doubt make it one the most notable in the city of Salford, but perhaps not on a national or wider scale. In terms of reliable sources, it's not hard to find official information regarding it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we can wait a bit for this one and it is beyond the point of looking into a crystal ball. - Pmedema (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fouad Hamssine[edit]

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

Page created with very bad grammar. Not a notable person Telfordbuck (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Had considered nominating for WP:CSD#A7 but was going to see if article creator would improve the article. It also seemed very familiar to other new pages I have reviewed, but I was unable to find examples of them. Creator could possibly be a sockpuppet of other since-banned users but I have nothing concrete to base that off as the pages would have been deleted for A7. — IVORK _Discuss 02:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Subject is clearly notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Eldredge (album)[edit]

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

Album article with little more than a track listing having no indication of notability Jax 0677 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect until it charts. There would be no point to deleting this; it was just released and is yet to chart anywhere because of that. It has the potential to be expanded. There is a claim of notability because the artist who made it is a notable country artist. However, if there is a concern about the notability of this article in particular, it could easily be redirected until such a time as an editor does expand it. I believe this nomination is a waste of time because I sincerely doubt the Wikipedia community would honestly think this is an article worth deleting over simply redirecting it. Ss 112 01:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this nominator needs to rethink their conception of "no indication of notability". It's received coverage from extremely mainstream reliable sources like Rolling Stone, AllMusic, Billboard, Billboard again, and CMT (Country Music Television). Please start following through on WP:BEFORE instead of continuing on with these sorts of nominations. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable album meeting WP:GNG even if it doesn't chart. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73. Coverage exists to pass WP:GNG, and multiple sources have been added to the article. The album is also projected to be number one on next week's US chart, for what it's worth. gongshow talk 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maktab, Lahore[edit]

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

Per source searches, this school does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp, but refine the title perhaps which makes it appear like a geographic location. Mar4d (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. That said, it is such blatant spam that if at NPP it had been given the G11, as patrolling admin I probably would not have argued. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A B M Aktaruzzaman[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since patrolled in February. The three cited sources are shallow links to his employers. They don't mention him. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, ProQuest, and eight national newspapers, including by Bengali-script name, found some photo credits, but no significant coverage. Does not meet WP:BIO. Worldbruce (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any source that would establish notability of the subject. --nafSadh did say 20:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There has been a substantial discussion following the re-opening of this discussion (per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_6) and there is a clear consensus favouring deletion, even after weighing User:Snaevar's arguments. A Train^talk 19:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fróði Fríðason Jensen[edit]

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

Per BLP nomination: Subject is not notable; known only to local Faroese area. Awards are not International, Olympic or World Class level; only semi-local awayds. References are minimal / non-existent in English. Maineartists (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, no notability (local athlete, no major realisation), no reliable source, and almost nothing on him.Socerb102 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG, based on Google-found resources. Table tennis isn't covered by WP:NATHLETE, so there are no bright line criteria for that sport, but I agree with the nominator that the awards listed in the article are for competitions that would likely not be included in the criteria if WP:NATHLETE did cover table tennis. One comment, on the nomination, however: whether sources are available in English isn't germane to an assessment of either verifiability or notability. Largoplazo (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Faroe Islands' population is under 50,000. The claim to notability is effectively being one of the best table tennis players in a town. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three comments. Firstly, the english wikipedia does allow non-English sources, see Wikipedia:NONENG. Secondly, saying that the Faroe Islands is an local area is incorrect as they do have their own parliament which handles all domestic affairs, and in fact calling them an local area of Denmark would be like calling Scotland, England or Wales an local area, e.g. it is a country, not an area. Not only that, but it is also considered offensive to the faroese people (see the link for proof of that). Thirdly, even though Google Translate is good at translating in English, the same does not apply to every other language.--Snaevar (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable athlete to warrant an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed this as delete, but backing out my close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 6 to give people time to consider Snaevar's argument
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To specifically address Snaevar's arguments: 1) Of course the english wikipedia allows non-English sources. This is not the argument. The argument is if the subject of notability for inclusion is notable enough to be covered outside of the original language that is assigned to the subject's specific category: i.e. sports. It has nothing to do with utilizing sources in other languages, that is a common practice at WP. The question arises when there are absolutely no other sources to be found in any other language than the native language for the subject themselves that questions the notability and their coverage. If the subject is a "champion" at table tennis, then coverage would be not exclusive to the native language of the subject but covered in other languages and media. This is not the case. 2) The term "local" is being taken out of context (due to, I believe, translation) and that it has nothing to do with locality to surrounding countries of origin; but "local" as in exclusivity of the subject to that nation / country alone. To say the subject is a "champion of the Faroe Islands" is not an insult but simply refers to local notability. 3) Google Translate is not the factor in this case. The article is poor in its writing and the content is sparse at best. Regardless of the subject's notability, the article itself should be called into question as WP quality and standards. I vote again: delete. Maineartists (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On a point of order, the language of the source is completely irrelevant, and in any case there are sources in both Icelandic and Faroese in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I find the reasoning advanced by User:Snaevar to be pretty unconvincing. Nobody is arguing that the Faroese are not a nation here. But the UK analogy is simply not valid; Northern Ireland has a population of almost two million, or about thirty-six times that of the Faroes. The two situations are simply not comparable. The small city I grew up in has a population about the same, and nobody would argue that the best table tennis player in the City of Redcliffe is automatically notable because of that. The sources also seem to be rather primary in nature; while I would remain open to being convinced by the presentation of substantial secondary sources about this individual (in any language), what we have here are a bunch of very short articles that resemble match reports in very specialised publications. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Responding to Snaevar's characterization of my Delete !vote above as involving "speculation", if that means that I was speculating as to what guidelines WP:NATHLETE would provide for table tennis if it provided guidelines for table tennis, then that's kind of misguided. I could have limited my second sentence to "Table tennis isn't covered by WP:NATHLETE, so there are no bright line criteria for that sport." In continuing it by "speculating", I was trying to give the article the benefit of the doubt, considering whether it might pass WP:NATHLETE in spirit if not to the letter.

Now I'm looking at WP:NTENNIS, WP:NBADMINTON, and Table tennis#Competition, and it still isn't clear to me that the Fynske Mesterskabe, the GP (not sure what that is), and the Arctic Open are in the echelons of the sport that would be included in WP:NTABLETENNIS if there were such a set of guidelines. I could be mistaken. Largoplazo (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Figuring out what the notability criteria would be for table tennis involves a lot of variables, where the argument of it ending up being based on other notability criteria is just one of them.

The notability rules are written based on an conseus that has been reached in an discussion between wikipedians, and the same applies to any addition of the notibility rules. Predicting the outcome of such an conseus would require not only looking at one argument, but also knowing what arguments would be made against it, what affect those arguments would have and more importantly whether those arguments would make a stronger point than than the original suggestion.

Also, it is very likely that someone would make an different suggestion, or even suggestions, of what the notability criteria for table tennis would be. Without knowing what that suggestion may be, it is impossible to know whether the alternative criteria would result as being the conseus of the discussion or not.

If the discussions on notability of sports had repeatedly ended with the conseus that the same notability rules should apply, then we would be looking at one chapter of notability rules, not 34 (26+3+5 = 34) of them. History of these discussions do not go in favor of your argument, but rather quite the contrary.--Snaevar (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me Fróði is notable, since he was the national champion in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Faroese Masters (FM) is the country championship for the faroese islands, so Fróði was the national champion in 2012, 2013 and 2014. GP-knappnigin is a lower level table tennis tournament in the faroese islands. Arctic Open is an tournament with participants from the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.--Snaevar (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the debate about the size of the Faroe Islands versus any other given location is important, I think it misses the point. The fact of the matter is that the Faroe Islands are (as Snaevar rightly points out) a constituent country of Denmark. I live in a city with a population larger than several European states, but would be very concerned if someone were to say "This person was the number-one ranked X in San Marino [for the sake of an example], which is smaller than Brisbane and therefore doesn't amount to notability". There are any number of reasons why most of us won't know more than the odd Faroese celebrity (I think I can name two, but I was always an odd child), but to characterise the notability of such an individual as only being "local" is unfortunate. I'm sure there'd be cries of "systemic bias" if the local notability were confined to part of the developing world, for example. Sourcing is a concern - the primary nature thereof, emphatically not the language - but I doubt there's going to be an awful lot written in any language about a Faroese table tennis player, certainly as compared to a player from one of the countries which win gold medals at the Olympics in the sport. Having spent a lot of my time recently looking at newly-created articles about footballers from unusual places, I know full-well that match reports in languages other than English are often the best we can hope for in terms of coverage, and that's for "the world game". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of the debate as being "about the size of the Faroe Islands versus any other given location" is incorrect, as that is only one argument that's been given. In a discussion, disposing of one invalid argument doesn't eliminate the need to make or consider valid ones. You haven't provided any arguments for finding Jensen notable, nor addressed other arguments (like mine) dealing with WP:GNG and WP:BIO/WP:NATHLETE that made no mention of the size of the country he's from. Largoplazo (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My characterisation was that the debate was in part about the size of the Faroe Islands - rather a significant part, I would suggest, but agreed that it's a part, which is why I also addressed other issues in my comment, to which you've kindly responded. I have addressed issues of sourcing, all of which I'm sure you would agree feeds into GNG-related matters even though I didn't specifically use that acronym at the time. I disagree entirely that I've not "provided any arguments for finding Jensen notable", as I've indicated that we may well be dealing (certainly I am, I have no Faroese and severely limited Icelandic searching abilities) with the best evidence we're going to get which, while less than ideal, is at least at, if not marginally above, the sourcing we can expect for players of a more popular sport in other countries. I know, before you say it, that other-stuff-exists isn't a valid argument in and of itself, but this isn't simply a case of "we have an article on Blabla, therefore we should have an article on Jensen", so much as "what standard can we reasonably expect to hit here, particularly given the circumstances?" BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence sums it up: As in your earlier contribution, you have taken issue with several of the arguments that others gave in supporting their Delete !votes, and have mulled over what standards should be used here, but you haven't written anything of the form, "... is clearly coverage that meets WP:GNG and/or other pertinent guidelines." I agree with you that some of the arguments given here against notability are incorrect, and I agree with you that one should give due consideration to how one establishes notability or a lack thereof. However, when I concluded "delete", I gave my reasoning based on what coverage I did or didn't find for this person and based on what level of events this person competed in. You concluded "keep" without explaining what guideline you thought was, after all your analysis, met, and how it was met. At least, as far as I can tell, after rereading. Largoplazo (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your opinion. I disagree with it, as is my right, but I thank you for it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BigHaz: On the matter of the only sources being available being match reports, I'd point out that this is a BLP. We are supposed to have the highest standards for verifiability of information here. If there aren't good sources that go into detail about this person, regardless of the reason for that, how can we write a neutral, good-quality biographical article about them? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I take your point, and agree with it to a certain extent. In an ideal world, there would be at least one source of at least moderate reliability in English, and it's interesting that nothing like that seems to exist for someone from Scandinavia. I'm still taking the pragmatic view I've expressed earlier for the reasons I've indicated, though, but I'm not going to feel too hard-done-by if my view doesn't prevail. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is amusing: I like the spin of achieving "2nd place" rather than admitting losses! But in bigger picture it is a bit embarrassing for Wikipedia to have articles like this, essentially a joke article pushing the notability limits. --do ncr am 16:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again false statement, doncram. Fróði achived 1st place in FM and as such was the country´s champion in 2012, 2013 and 2014. As far as your failed joke goes you are really just throwing stones out of an glass house, since there is no notability criteria for table tennis and this article fulfills the basic criteria just fine. Making jokes like that is a known dominance technique, often used when the person who uses it does not have sufficient arguments to back their own statements up.--Snaevar (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per doncram. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 18:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This table tennis player does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. All the sources provided appear to be routine coverage of sporting events with no biographical content about the subject in them. Although sport-specific recommended notability criteria for table tennis players have not been established, it appears that he has never even competed in the Olympics, World Championships, World Cup, or European Championships of table tennis, much less medaled at any of those competitions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with Metropolitian90, there could be more of non-routine coverage citations, so here has one more has been added. However, the basic criteria of NATHLETE only mentions the Olympics as an example and the list of world championships, world cup and european championship is not mentioned there.--Snaevar (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agree with Metropolitan90. All the "coverage" is the usual routine sports coverage, and there is no biographical content available. Though I'd go further and say I'd be very cautious in deferring to a sports notability guideline, if one existed for this sport, since they are invariably indiscriminate "everything is notable" bilge. Reyk _YO! 10:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The language of the sources is irrelevant to whether the person clears WP:GNG or not, and the size of the Faroe Islands is not relevant to notability either. What is determinative is that (a) the level of competition that he participated in is not high enough to confer an automatic inclusion pass just because he was there, and (b) the sources aren't substantively enough about him to meet the demands of GNG. We don't keep articles about every person who can simply be verified as existing; we keep articles about people who have been substantively the subject of media coverage for an accomplishment that satisfies a notability standard. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Places to Publish". Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved 15 August 2017.
^ "San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment: Putting science into the assessment of research" (PDF). American Society for Cell Biology. Retrieved 15 August 2017.
^ Meyer, Bertrand. "What is Your Research Culture? Part 3: the Web of Science". Communications of the ACM. Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved 15 August 2017.
^ "Review of Google scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus search results: The case of inclusive education research". Digital Commons. University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Retrieved 15 August 2017.

[1] "Places to Publish". Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved 15 August 2017.

[2] "San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment: Putting science into the assessment of research" (PDF). American Society for Cell Biology. Retrieved 15 August 2017.

[3] Meyer, Bertrand. "What is Your Research Culture? Part 3: the Web of Science". Communications of the ACM. Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved 15 August 2017.

[4] "Review of Google scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus search results: The case of inclusive education research". Digital Commons. University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Retrieved 15 August 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]