Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 July	18 July >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fellows (politician)[edit]

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

no basis for notability. Very minor officeholder, being the first Libertarian Party candidate to be elected in a statewide office might be notable, but not merely winning a 40% share of the votes, but losing. (presumably originally intended as advocacy for his political carrier, he is no longer living_ DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL, no other claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, clearly notable figure. Very important historical figure in Libertarian politics. according to a Washington Times article by By Matt Volz, he had been involved with the Montana Libertarian Party since 1982.
Mike Fellows was also the Montana coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association [1]. He was also the longest-serving active state chair of the Libertarian Party [2]. Fellows was referred to in the Billings Gazette as the "Godfather of third-party politics in Montana" and for good reason! Fellows made history in 2012. In the 2012 election, Fellows actually made national history by becoming the first Libertarian in national Libertarian Party history to crack that 40 percent barrier in a partisan statewide race. It had never been passed before! He won 43% of the votes which amounts to 185,419 votes and thus carried 27 of the state’s 56 counties in a two-way race for the Supreme Court clerk position. He also was running against the incumbent Democrat Ed Smith. Not only is that no mean feat, that's a history making event! Love or loathe the Libertarian party, it made people right across the United States take a second look at the Libertarian party. And Fellows was responsible for that. His presence and historical winning of 43% of the votes has reverberations that transcend the state of Montana and reverberate anywhere in the United States where a Libertarian party exists. Karl Twist (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per #3 of NPOL. Not all of the refs are RS-worthy, but most are. Still needs cleanup, though. South Nashua (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I see it, we have the high bar of the POLITICIAN special notability guideline in place as a filter against the propaganda of self-serving political wannabes on the make. Note that this is a non-living subject; thus a return to the more lax normal GNG standards may well be appropriate. 17:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep, as surprised as I am to find myself agreeing with Karl Twist about pretty much anything. The sourcing here is substantial enough and voluminous enough to satisfy WP:GNG — and for a fringe party that's never actually won a seat in any WP:NPOL-passing legislative body at all, getting the biggest vote total in that party's entire history, and thereby coming the closest that anybody in the party has ever gotten to actually winning an election, is a pretty decent claim to being at least somewhat more notable than the norm for unsuccessful candidates. And yes, since he's dead we don't have to weigh this against the prospect of the article getting misused as a campaign brochure in a future election — that doesn't mean we should automatically drop NPOL for all dead candidates and weigh them solely against a very general standard of "it has sources so it can stay", but in an edge case like this where there's a pretty substantial volume of sourcing and a credible reason why he could be considered more notable than usual, that argument is a valid factor in tipping the balance. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Alan Payne[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN reddogsix (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Texas gubernatorial election, 2018. What is mentioned in the sources other than "he's running" doesn't justify a standalone article. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect to the election per Kinu. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — and as of today, he's still only a candidate in a party primary, which is even less of a notability claim. At the gubernatorial level, the election campaign frequently does generate more and wider coverage than assembly races do, so he may have a valid claim to passing WP:GNG next year if he wins the primary and becomes the Democratic candidate in the general — but even that wouldn't guarantee him an article in and of itself if it couldn't be substantively written and sourced — but nothing here as of right now already entitles him to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and Kinu. If he wins the primary, we can perhaps reopen the page. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elia Gourgouris[edit]

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

Promotional. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is a non-notable success coach. The article is way to promotional. For example, generally being a contributor to a magazine is not enough on its own to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Jack and Nom.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. Could find sources for her being a trustee, but that is not a notable position. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 11:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kart praça[edit]

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

Unsourced, nothing to suggest this is noteworthy Jac16888 ^Talk 22:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like it got deleted on the Portuguese Wikipedia, so someone just copy-pasted it over here instead. Gilded Snail (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EasyCap[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance or notability when limited sources are taken into account.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Should have been Speedy Delete. Zazzysa (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure to clear the GNG. Possible A7, but with the possibility of notabilities on GNEWs, I think that AfD was better that CSD. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarod Joseph[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, whose only listed reference is a single blurb of "local boy makes good" coverage in a hometown newspaper on the occasion of his appearing as a one-off guest character in one television episode -- while there are other roles listed in his filmography, none of them are reliably sourced at all. As always, an actor does not get a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because some (or a lot of) roles are listed — if the base notability claim amounts to "he's been in stuff", then it takes reliable source coverage about his work in some of those roles, and more than just one piece of that, to get him in the door. (Note: despite the fact that this is a second nomination, I'm not willing to speedy this as a recreation of deleted content — the first version was completely unsourced and consisted only of a statement that he existed, so even if notability hasn't been properly demonstrated here the content is still significantly different from the first time.) Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per previous nomination. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a really well-known actor. Harut (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that he's "really well-known" being...what, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The mentions of him don't work under either the GNG and NActor. Well written rationale. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by User:Doc James as WP:G11,G5. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Hoerle-Guggenheim[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG has an unsupported claim to be a member of the Guggenheim family but even if this were referenced, notability is not inherited. Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very likely a hoax, or perhaps even part of a fraud - in any case the claim of being part of the Guggenheim family has to be proved or there is not even a shadow of a claim to notability here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if he were part of the Guggenheim family, I think this subject fails notability guidelines. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Gilded Snail (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a strange mishmash of WP:NOTINHERITED and borderline WP:BLP1E with the Alison Jackson performance art thing (two of the sources don't even mention the subject of the article). He seems to be a real person with a gallery, a knack for being photographed with celebrities, and some kind of arrest record, but that's all I can figure out with a few minutes of WP:BEFORE research. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Looks like paid for spam from a sock puppet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 09:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Bhakti Rathod[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Has acted in non-notable films. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable ACTRESS, MUST BE THERE. Bhakti Rathod is a notable and award-winning actress who has worked in multiple films and serials. Multiple third-party reliable sources confirm to the notability.--Rashkeqamar (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has acted only in films and tv series that are not notable, hence fails WP:NACTOR. Coderzombie (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, Bhakti Rathore is mentioned in IMDb

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm9104078/?ref_=tt_cl_t1

Bhakti got Best Theatre actress- Tihai Gujarati Glamour Award 2014. She has acted as a child artist in Hindi serials on Star Plus like Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi and Des Mein Niklla Hoga Chand. She later also acted Sajda Tere Pyaar Mein. she has done many Gujarati film like Aapne To Dhirubhai.--Rashkeqamar (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not good enough source for notability. Child actors having minor roles does not establish notability either. The films she has acted in are not notable either. Please read WP:NACTOR before presenting arguments. Coderzombie (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Nearly borderlining meeting GNG, and appears to have doubtful notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No doubt the subject has received coverage in reliable sources but I’m not sure if the subject has played a major role in tv serial listed in the article within “Television” section so I request to author Rashkeqamar to provide some evidence to support his claim otherwise it can be deleted per WP:TOOSOON. I would however hold judgement and not vote since the nominator asked me to look into this AfD. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 18:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Here is Google search and some articles on The Times of India found talking about the actress. Article 1, Article 2, Article 3 and Article 4. She looked some known TV actress of Hindi and Gujrati television. The article looks notable, still would urge to check if subject passes notably. --Elton-Rodrigues 20:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Comment: Bhakti acted in Gujarati serial Pati Thayo Pati Gayo on ETV Gujarati.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/gujarati/Pati-Thayo-Pati-Gayo-has-its-social-messages/articleshow/46342051.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/gujarati/Bhakti-Rathodis-playing-the-lead-in-Pati-Thayo-Pati-Gayo/articleshow/45214218.cms?
Bhakti Rathod is also currently playing a major role in India's 1st Gujarati rom-com web series ‘Kacho Papad Pako Papad’ which has received extensive coverage.
http://www.exchange4media.com/industrybriefing/sonyliv-launches-gujarati-rom-com-web-series-kacho-papad-pako-papad_68853.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/web-series-gets-gujarati-flavour/articleshow/58728307.cms
http://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/now-watch-indias-1st-gujarati-romcom-web-series-kacho-papad-pako-papad/1054088
http://gulfnews.com/tabloid/film/web-series-gets-gujarati-flavour-1.2029926
--Rashkeqamar (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Bhakti Rathod has acted in a TV serial Kanho Banyo Common Man. Her new film Wass...up! Zindagi is releasing in August 2017.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/gujarati/Sagar-panchal-makes-his-Gujarati-TV-debut/articleshow/45133014.cms
--Rehmanbarua (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new user whose only contribution is to the article in question. Probably WP:SPA Coderzombie (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knappologi[edit]

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

This article is a mere definition of a term only included in a short story. However, per WP:NOT, such articles should not be kept. Also, there is no supported claim of notability for this very term. So I believe that the article should be deleted. Kostas20142 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per this nomination (and my PROD), this is only a would-be dictionary definition, and there is no evidence that the term is used outside the story. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDICT. The word is sometimes used in Swedish [3], and is even included in the major encyclopedia Nationalencyklopedin [4]. That's not an argument for keeping the article, not least because this is the English Wikipedia, and as far as I know the word is never used in English. Sjö (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Knappologi is suitable for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Julle (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aygün Kazımova. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Aygün Kazımova[edit]

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

This has not enough information to be an article. Harut (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Harut (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
obvious merge back toAygün Kazımova which is not so large as to need such splitting. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" 'Merge' " with article on Aygun Kazimova. Vorbee (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swarda Thigale[edit]

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

Badly sourced (and I couldn't find additional sources), generally non-encyclopedic tone, the creator's name, Fiverrman, in combination with the photo declared as "own work" suggests significant COI issues. On top of that, the notability of the subject is borderline at best. Rentier (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable subject. Finding more sources that meet WP:VER unlikely.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NActor and the GNG. I doubt the IndianAFD guide will help us here. Article is very promo-y (the whole personal section could go). L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR, and searches did tutn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paradise Pier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar Pier[edit]

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

Non-notable content fork of Paradise Pier. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator had tried to merge but it was undone by the article creator. Redirect per nom, until such time as a page move is required to the new name. I believe that's what we have done in cases where amusement parks have been rebranded and rethemed, but if that's not so, please ping me. I see that the nominator is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney so I rather think he's on solid ground, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added Category:Proposed amusement parks, which I think pertains, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That category has been removed by an IP account, with explanation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the Disney WP seems to be semi-active, I've linked to this Afd from WikiProject Amusement Parks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now – Paradise Pier should eventually be renamed "Pixar Pier" once the new theme is applied in 2018. I don't see a reason to have two separate articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect for now, agree with Shawn in Montreal's judgement, as someone who is a member of both WikiProjects affected. Elisfkc (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Incorporated of Southwestern Connecticut[edit]

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

Affiliate of a national organization. As a rule, these are not notable per WP:ORG; I don't see where this affiliate is an exception. Also, the article is lacking in independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- regional affiliates are rarely notable and this one misses the mark big time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this particular affiliate is notable. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion by the article creator, who is employed by the article subject, does not address the lack of notability as reflected in reliable third-party sources, see WP:GNG. Sandstein 12:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Water Hub[edit]

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

Article written by the Communications Officer of the Geneva Water Hub; no sources other than its own and associated websites. Promotional COI article. PamD 18:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches turn in nothing to add meaningful sources, and fails GNG and NCORP. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a particularly notable subject, unlikely that more verifiable sources will turn up. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a result.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My objective is in no way to promote or advertise the, more than an organization, Initiative I work for but to inform the community and general audience about this process, also Secretariat of the Global High-Level Panel on Water and Peace, in favour of water and peace, globally. I have been very careful to follow the Wikipedia 5 pillars in all of my content writing. The reliability of source has particularly been at my attention, and the diversity of them will grow in the coming weeks. Regarding my involvement with the Initiative, I am taking care to comply with the Wikipedia: Plain and simple conflict of interest guide as best as possible, be transparent and completely neutral. I hope that you will understand that I am new to the Wikipedia philosophy and how to put it into practice (technically). I am ready to follow concrete piece of advice to make the Geneva Water Hub article acceptable.--Stephanekluser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Black[edit]

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

Black was a city councillor in Brandon, Manitoba. With only 49,000 residents, it's not big enough for councillors to automatically merit their own articles (as per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES).

Black was also an academic, but I don't believe he meets the criteria for notability set out at WP:PROF. Madg2011 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passes neither WP:Prof or politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The potential for notability here depends on WP:PROF for his work as a professor, not on WP:NPOL for being a city councillor in a small city, but the academic work is sitting on primary sources — the reliable sources are supporting the city council, his non-winning federal candidacy and a summary of general political views that we don't care about for a politician who hasn't held a notable office. As well, by and large those sources aren't about him in the manner necessary to clear WP:GNG, but merely namecheck his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article whose subject is something or someone else (and/or where he's the author of the content.) None of this is enough to deem him more notable than the norm for city councillors, and none of it supports notability as an academic at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Joanna Pickering. Based on the discussion below, and from the discussion with the subject of the article in VRTS ticket # 2017071910019884, there is a consensus at least that the article doesn't belong in main article space yet. Based on the subject's current work on soon-to-be-released shows that don't yet have coverage, this may be a WP:TOOSOON situation. Therefore, due in part to the urgent nature of the agreement from the subject that it would be best to delete the article until the notability issue is settled, I believe the best compromise at this stage is to move the article to draft space so that it can be improved upon release of the subject's upcoming shows. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Pickering[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Sources are too weak to support any notability guideline. Specifically, sources #1, 3, 6, 8, 12 and 17 are interviews with the subject or related people ~~(such as fiancé)~~ and therefore not independent RSes. Source 14 is the subject's own website, not usable as a self-published source. Sources 4 and 13 are blurbs from a minor 25-watt local radio station, as stated on the article talkpage don't contribute much to notability. Many of the other sources are similarly weak: #15-16-18 (reviews of a band she's not in), #19 (name on poster w/o role, also her fiancé's production) - also #21 redirects to same site, and #11 is a Blogspot blog. Sources #7 and #20 fail verification completely: neither mentions the subject. #5 is a dead link impossible to verify but apparently serves to source subject's appearance in an unknown play with unknown writers. The only sources that really work are #2 establishing her undergraduate degree, #9 establishing her role in a single film, and a brief mention of the same role in #10, but this isn't enough for a full BLP. Unsurprisingly, the article was created by a now blocked promotional editor and the subject's personal website has had a link to this Wikipedia article since sometime in 2011, according to Internet Archive, about the same time a New York management agency created it. This is the result: the worst SPS/interview sources are used for the majority of the citations. Huge sections of the article on the CREATIVE's work are completely unsupported despite the management company's socks returning to prop it up. Summary, still not notable same as in the first deletion debate in 2009. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. The article is looking a lot better than it did before despamming and cleanup but now that the fixable problems have been cleaned up we are left with the intrinsic ones and they are serious. The movie she is claimed to be notable for doesn't have an article and seems not to be notable. The TV series she is claimed to be producing has no article. The references are really not great for verification but I assume that it is basically true, albeit cast in a light to make it look far more impressive than it really is. If so, she probably works hard but working hard on non-notable projects does not make you notable. And that is where it really falls down. Where is the notability? A very few bit parts in notable films and TV shows. Some larger parts in non-notable films. The odd mention in a fashion magazine. This is no good. Finally there is the claim that she is notable as a "muse". Whatever happens to the rest of the article I'd like to see that cast into the bitbucket on account of it being 2017 CE. Personally, I don't know many women who wouldn't punch somebody who described them as a "muse". Deleting that part would be a kindness. -DanielRigal (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and non-notable for the reasons given above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My muse tells me that she might be notable in 3-4 years, but not yet. Independent reliable sources are just not there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bri sets out a detailed and compelling case for deletion. Edwardx (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per case set out by nominator - attempts to clean up COI and promotional issues have clearly exposed the lack of notability. Melcous (talk)
NOT Delete proper citations needed adding (now added) removing problem of weak sources (more can be added - plenty to find. Regards fiance (which a quick look at his page suggests he is not out to promote her) the sources are in big UK sources/newspapers - scotsman (music) huffington post (film). It is clear she has notable credits if more avant-garde than commercial. All her films are clarified and credited on on imdb credits. There was also proof of awards won in independent film and festival (which is not on page). The notable film - actually has far more press which needs to be added (kubricks) in known sources, as well as two other films. Non primary sources needed adding (added) and further wording needed to be taken out. Further sources are ample - Huffington post etc and major sources as well as avant-garde sources. She is clearly linked to the Creation records scene (via Alan Mcgee) and this is noted as a culturally accepted genre in itself while not mainstream. Previous reading of earlier pages since 2007 suggest she is known for such choices. I found one article noting her a fashion influencer. I agree muse is not a good word, however it is no doubt she has collaborated at this level on projects of not mainstream but cultural significance - including a film at the whitney museum which is leading gallery. Would collaborator be better for her (did a man write the muse part?!) I think we need to keep adding the more relevant sources that are there to be found and actually do the service that is needed. I would be very nervous to delete a female actors body of work, even if early days, when it is clear many sources have not yet been added. There is editing work to be done, and especially having her management confirm as they handle notable actors in first place. I would hesitate not to work on this and make as concise with proper sources than delete. Cannot find anything for the most beautiful gallery- it is clear she was involved but the source does not load - maybe delete that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp0071125 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC) — Dp0071125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOT delete - added valuable press sources from non primary sources and removed sections that did not have this - it is all verifiable in other sites such as imdb and via directors she has clearly worked with outside mainstream. Have left only information with more press sources that are not primary. Tidied up external links, corrected information that did not fit with those articles linking, and took out the filmographies that are on imdb.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.114.163 (talk • contribs) — 24.193.114.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Under A3 RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Bitcoin Professional[edit]

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

Article has no references and is essentially only a dictionary definition. Google search shows only that a procedure for the certification exists, and there are no independent articles about the significance of the certification. With no independent coverage, a Wikipedia article is in effect only promoting the examination and certification. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider speedy A3. I actually had it open in another tab and was waiting to see if anything else got added. But as it stands, it's essentially just a restatement of the title. TimothyJosephWood 16:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nominated once before with the same reasoning. Speedy-deleted as copyright violation. This version of the article does not appear to be copyright and so can go through deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was send to draft space (Draft:Hawaiian Chocolate Factory) in lieu of deleting or speedy deleting. Incubation is best option right now for an article that frankly could be speedy deleted under CSD A7 in its current condition. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Chocolate Factory[edit]

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

Does not satisfy corporate notability. No independent references.

Has already been speedy-deleted once. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - As per A7. There aren't any reliable, independent sources that prove that the subject of the article is notable. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 16:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion, this is being draftified. Okay with nominator to move to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Life in Silk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable game without a reliable source._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any online sources that would help indicate some sort of notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, I cannot find any RSs that even mention this game.--IDV^talk 10:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be significant reliable sources and coverage. It needs a minor clean up though, per WP:MOS. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 09:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gillie and Marc[edit]

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (from their edit summary) was "personal content. not content for encyclopedia.". On the merits, the article was created and exclusively edited by Gillieandmarcart (talk · contribs), which is either a username violation or an indication of autobiography. While there are some reliable-ish sources included in the article, the vast majority are from the subject's website - never a good sign. The prose itself is problematic, as with the lead where some of the subject's work is self-described as iconic. I make no recommendation as to notability, but if there is a suitable article about these individuals, I don't think this is it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as badly flawed but still notable (media coverage, multiple books by major publishers, etc). We have a procedure for potential deletions described in WP:BEFORE. In other words, WP:SOFIXIT, Anonymous. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to have been significant work done since it was IP nominated for AfD, including appropriate referencing. There seems to be plenty of secondary sources available, including some I found immediately which are not industry related, and reliable, ie plenty of WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Solvent. Based on the discussion, it does not seem like this topic is different from solvent seeing as Google hits do not prove anything and the Russian term simply means the same thing Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multicomponent solvents[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition plus a product listing at best. All of these products appear to be specific product codes rather than widely used in industry. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to solvent at best, but no prejudice against deletion either. In my quick search, I find scientific articles using the term, but nothing beyond passing mention that would fulfill notability. In the term does get mention at the article, it probably won't ever be more than a sentence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is widely used in CIS countries, where Multicomponent Solvents are widely available in the market. They are known by their name Rastvoritel (Russian: Растворитель). Numnber 646 yields over 100k hits on Google: [6]. --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 11:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources that say that these terms and numbers are widely used in CIS countries? # of Google hits is not a reliable metric. shoy (reactions) 12:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Saippuakauppias is the article creator. I also have to agree that nothing in this comment establishes anything that fulfills WP:GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "ru:Растворитель" is no more than the ordinary Russian word for "solvent". See also ru:wikt:растворитель. Nothing multicomponent in itself about the word at all. Narky Blert (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong analysis by NorthBySouthBaranof. Due to low participation I am happy to WP:REFUND on request but I see no reason to clog up the logs with yet another relist for an article like this.A Train^talk 09:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JT Foxx[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The truly reliable sourcing in this article amounts to a single Deutsche Welle article; that single source is insufficient to support the creation of a Wikipedia biography. The other sources are trivial mentions about how he bought a really expensive dinner and how he hired someone as a paid endorser. If more sources are discovered in the future, the article can always be recreated, but this simply isn't suitable for an encyclopedia at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. David[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN (at least not yet) - somebody who has put their name forward for a local council election and nothing else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local boardmember running for a city council election. Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, and no significant coverage found, so also doesn't pass WP:GNG WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. , preferably speedyA7, nobody can rationally think that membership on a community board and the mere intention to run for city council is enough to justify an article in an encyclopedia; or speedy G11, since it is obviously intended as a campaign statement. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete where's the credible claim of significance? Let alone notability. — fortunavelut luna 21:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication or credible claim of notability. Why was speedy deletion declined? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were sources, which might suggest a redirect or amalgamation to some list article instead of deletion. Maybe. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 and Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance. Seemed better to have the full chat at AfD - I don't think there's an immediate rush to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for announcing their candidacies in future city council elections — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for an article under some other notability criterion before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to qualify for an article for his political activity. But this makes no valid claim of preexisting notability, and is based entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single article in a community weekly newspaper — which is not enough coverage to deem his candidacy a special "more notable than the norm" case, either. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article fails notability as described by Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people notable for only one event. Since the subject did not play a significant role in the event and does not appear to be notable outside of the event, this article does not appear to meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Marwat[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:1EVENT. Greenbörg (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no. received press coverage only for a single event. --Saqib (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to find coverage so we can have a article for that event but that failed too. Greenbörg (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sad delete exactly per the nom. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, per WP:1EVENT.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think, rather dramatic, significant attack, multiple deaths . Sourcing, rewriting now. Please give me a few minutes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN I have added a number of sources, expanded article a bit. National/International coverage (BBC, Indian and Pakistani papers). Some ongoing. 16 people killed in suicide attack - not sure whether this includes the suicide bomber. Target attack on this police officer, I assume that a Deputy Superintendent of Police is a significant rant because he was being driven in his official car at the time of the attack. I also assume that the Nom and editors commenting above did not have access to news archive searches. Suggest that we change title to something like Killing of Iqbal Marwat, or similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just looked an more news article come up on a simple google search of his name: [7]. Article can be expanded even without access to paywalled archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by clicking either r"news" or "HighBeam" at the top of this page. I do so wish that Nom would have looked a little harder, or that editors would at the very least click on the tool bar before iVoting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking "News" on the tool bar brings up a number of articles demonstrating impact, and ongoing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That there's coverage of this event doesn't mitigate the 1Event-ness of the article. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, major terrorist attacks are not precluded from notability because they are "events", see WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An attack is an event and can be notable. A person is not an event. "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." Drmies (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as editors who look up the page will see, is why I have suggested renaming this page and reshaping it as an article about the bombing in which Iqbal Marwat was targeted and killed, along with 15 other human beings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I did see some coverage of his activities as a police official that pre-dated the attack; but I am suggesting moving article to a page about the attack, which did kill a lot of people and get a lot of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing editor, please relist this page because 1.) it was not listed a a terrorist attack and has, therefore, not drawn many editors. 2.) WP:HEY, and 3.) the discussion should shift to the notability of this killing as a targeted terrorist attack that killed 16 people (including the police official who was targeted).E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that the incident is notable whether we are referring to the officer alone or the attack as a whole. I'm sure there is a list that can accomandate any concerns by briefly mentioning the incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Drmies and WP:1E. A sad case, but the best that can be said for this person's notability is that they played a minor role (one of 16 killed) in a routine attack. If there were a page on the attack itself then a redirect might be appropriate, but there isn't and I doubt that the attack itself would be notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Terrill (executive)[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Most references are in passing in relation to companies he was associated with - notability is not inherited. No indications of notability in his own right. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "corporate executive spam" with content such as:

"In July 2015, Terrill was interviewed by Forbes Tech contributor, Patrick Moorhead. The story was in regards to the growing "Humans as a Service" (HaaS) business and the role HomeAdvisor is playing in this growing marketplace".

Reads like something that would appear on a fan page or an autobiography (along with "launched X service under Terrill's guidance"). Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - TheMagnificentist 09:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CEDC[edit]

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

This disambiguation page contains 7 items, of which only 1 has article. However, per WP:Disambiguation, dab pages are meant to deal with potential conflicts between subjects ALREADY covered by Wikipedia , for a given word or phrase that a reader might search. Here, with this acronym and these subjects included, it is not the case. Also, per WP:DABACRONYM , items should not be included unless they are commonly known by this acronym, included in the (not existent here) articles. So, I believe this dab page must be deleted Kostas20142 (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All items are allready mentioned in another articles on wikipedia (including abbreviation). Two of them now links to existing article. So I think it shouldn't be deleted.--Qxbase (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now meets requirements, with 2 articles and others which meet MOS:DABRL / MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now a valid dab page. PamD 16:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Wylie pedia 01:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Gold[edit]

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

Doesn’t appear notable NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 11:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Mistaken in nominating this article for deletion and not applying WP:BROADCAST properly. Withdrawing my request NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 20:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The television channel is Direct to Home (D2H) available by reputed services providers like Airtel, Vodafone etc. According to WP:BROADCAST Television channels require license as primary criteria of passing notability. Without license D2H services are not available in India see Direct-to-home television in India . The fact proves it's notability.

Anoptimistix (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The channel passes WP:BROADCAST, and currently is or has been broadcasted on a variety of cable services around the world, not just India. Includes being on major cable providers such as: Sky UK currently(Channel 809), and Time Warner Cable (previously?). WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Marvellous Spider-Man 18:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it appears I made a bad decision nominating this before checking all policy. After I nominated I was wondering if it should be merged with main article on the TV station but I since also see that all of the stations channels have their own pages as well. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NZ Footballs Conscience: are you withdrawing your nomination? — Wylie pedia 19:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @CAWylie: I believe it is best to withdraw my nomination for this article, I will do so now. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 20:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stubbs[edit]

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

Fails WP:CELEBRITY and WP:BASIC for lack of available independent sources about the subject. - Mr X 11:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails WP:CELEBRITY and WP:BASIC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:CREATIVE as sports journalist. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mainly because of the WP:NOTNEWS points brought up. I don't think that under current policy we can treat Daesh-affiliated crimes differently from non-Daesh affiliated ones, as an aside, which makes some of the notability arguments less convincing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017 Linz Attack[edit]

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

Article about a murder, written to sound like a terrorist attack. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. - Mr X 10:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Also a violation of WP:BLP as it says the arrested suspect is guilty of murder and terrorist offences when he hasn't been tried yet. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Page has been moved to June 2017 Linz Murder.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now A politically motivated, likely ISIL-inspired double homicide in Austria that have received notable coverage. An unusual and notable incident both because of the nature of the incident and the country it happened, (to 2nd comment) whether it's labelled "terror" or not is not relevant for notability, the inspiration and motive alone is notable in itself (although, according to article, the Austrian Minister of Interior and State Police Director seem to confirm this). (to 1st comment) BLP issues should be cleared up, but that in itself is not any reason for deletion. User2534 (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can't really clear up the BLP issues. The whole premise of the article is that this was a terrorist murder perpetrated by a named individual. It hasn't been proven to be either. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of violation of WP:BLP are nonsense. Nor only because suspect is identified only as "Mohamed H.", but because this is an article about a crime, and we do routinely keep articles about noteworthy recent homicides, and we keep significant crimes from the moment they become notable news stories even though they may take years to reach trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies if the individual is identifiable, or potentially identifiable, not simply if they are identified. Only if this person does not face trial, would this person cease to be easily identifiable . Pincrete (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chief of Police, Interior Minister, and police investigators have stated plainly that suspect is an ideologically motivated Islamist who murdered an elderly couple in cold blood because he thought that they belonged to a political party that he did not like. It is a major national news story in Austria and has gotten international mews coverage. (I added some English language sources and put the parts of text into intelligible English as per sources.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, oh, yeah, perp also pledged allegiance to ISIS and to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on his Facebook page "recently". E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom apparently failed to run WP:BEFORE check. Doing so would immediately have revealed that Austrian officials investigating this double murder, after investigating suspects social media accounts and computer files, began characterizing it as an Islamist attack, probably lone wolf, by July 6.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of that makes the subject any more notable. We do not have content policies that give special treatment to articles about possible IS inspired violence. This seems to be a fairly routine crime not worthy of preserving in an encyclopedia. It belongs in Wikinews.- Mr X 18:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "allegiance pledges"? The Austrian ones are v.poor and the Eng ones don't say that. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This a news event with no lasting notability. It's one murderer of no notability, and speculation that it "may have had Islamist motives" is not enough to justify an article. If, in the future, articles appear that describe the suspect trained in a Daesh terrorist camp or something like that, maybe then it would meet Wikipedia's standards. But as it stands now, WP:NOTNEWS. CrispyGlover (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article has improved a lot since the last time I checked. I would prefer some more changes to be made, like adding the name of the person accused rather than ISIL in the infobox. It was an ISIL-sympathiser, not an ISIL-member.JBergsma1 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JBergsma1 could you possibly rethink your vote again? The incident is still a WP:NOTNEWS event with no WP:LASTING impact. Gregory usually piles on sources to sway voters who don't always check the content. The article hasn't really improved; in fact, it has a lot of SYNTH and OR (see Pincrete's comment) now to carry on the narrative that this was terrorism without it being confirmed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick I understand what you mean with this incident having little media attention and notability for an encyclopedic article. In my opinion it is on the edge of being relevant and irrelevant, but since the article has been expanded with a wider background story and more information in general, I'll vote for it be kept.I did check some of the sources, like https://www.thelocal.at/20170706/islamist-motive-suspected-in-murder-of-elderly-couple-in-austria-linz, which mentions an islamist motive. I think, despite little international media coverage, the incident resembles the 2016 Magnanville stabbing a little bit. In that case to french police officers were murdered and in this case two elders who allegedly voted for the FPÖ were murdered. I have to admit that I don't know the exact circumstances in which this incident took place, but I have to agree with you as well on the content being rather unfitting.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've changed my opinion once again because new sources from the Austrian authorities are saying that there wasn't terrorism involved. As there was no terrorist motive, this incident becomes irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. The newspaper 'The Local', which is used in the article, mentions: We currently don't believe that it was an IS-motivated murder or terror attack.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your close look at the coverage. I struck your previous vote so editors do not think you voted twice.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, at first I didn't read the whole source. Better next time.JBergsma1 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrX: "Article about a murder, written to sound like a terrorist attack. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT" . Claims above that the Austrian authorities are treating this as 'terrorist' are false: the "same police spokesman said: "the case was being treated as a "double murder" and not a jihadist killing ... We currently don't believe that it was an IS-motivated murder or terror attack," Furtner said" this is the source which is being relied on to establish an ISIS connection. A lot of synth or OR is required to bypass such an explicit rebuttal. Pincrete (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of whether this is a terror attack or not (right now it is being investigated as the latter), should be irrelevant to the vote rationales on both sides of the discussion. Where is the WP:LASTING impact of the incident? If the answer is just "...well there will be a trial" then you haven't found a good reason to keep this article. Two people were murdered; it is a tragic occurrence, something the news loves to cover, but that does not mean it is suitable for the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LASTING will lie in the fact that this is being describes as the first Islamist attack in Austria.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per JBergsma1' arguments Zezen (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note That the murder occurred in June, however, national and international coverage followed the 6 July revelation that the killer had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State gNews search in German [8], French: [9].
First "If confirmed, Friday's killings in the northern city of Linz -- in which an 85-year-old woman's throat was slit and her 87-year-old husband was stabbed and beaten to death -- would be the first Islamist attack in Austria, which had so far avoided the jihadist assaults seen elsewhere in Europe." [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see a big if at the beginning of this statement. As in, you are assuming that this is a terror attack without it being confirmed. Why don't you respond to Pincrete's comment above? A lot of synth (again) is being used by you to create a narrative of terrorism.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not SYNTH. The Interior Minister and police investigators have stated that perp pledged allegiance to ISIS before murdering the elderly couple for ideological reasons. Killer now in custody, there will be a trial. Slick, I know that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but national and international press are covering the story because of the jihadist stuff all over his computer and social media accounts, and because he pledged allegiance to ISIS. Whey do you insist on WP:RAPID rather than WP:PRESERVE?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Are we supposed to create articles for every murder where the alleged motive as something new in a particular country, or does this only apply to the specter of radical Islamism?- Mr X 17:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The interior Minister's statements precede the police statement, but even if they didn't, it does not say what you claim, "perp pledged allegiance to .. no one" according to the sources. "Is clearly a radicalized Muslim" does not equal "was an Islamist attack" any more than "committed murder and 'liked' D Trump" = "is a far-right terrorist", pure synth. The possible ideological/political motive given by police is hatred of the far-right party, not support for ISIS. BTW the accused appears to have handed himself in to police, also probably a first for a terrorist! Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- note "If confirmed, Friday's killings..." -- let's wait until this is confirmed, and then maybe create an article. For now this is a crime of no encyclopedic relevance just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the linked articles; "If confirmed" refers to the question of whether or not the govt. of Austria will choose to deem this as a terrorist attack. Governments have political and other considerations, but they is separate from the fact that the international press has already covered this incident as a major national and international news story because 1.) perp knew his victims - who had been kind to him and had even lent him money - and attacked them because he disliked their politics, 2.) his social media and computer were filled with violent jihad, and, 3.) perp pledged alliegiance to ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is bad from for editors iVoting delete to delete pertinent information sourced to Le Parisien and Agence France Presse, and as well as to Austrian sources, but especially so with an edit that reads: " rm mindless speculation."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I apologize for the snotty edit summary, but I stand by my edit (which you have already reverted, contrary to WP:BRD). Wikipedia is WP:NOTSPECULATION. We should not amplify speculation as if trying to convince readers that a fairly minor event is highly significant.- Mr X 21:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- not everything published in the paper belongs in the encyclopedia, and this event does not belong yet, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re "not everything published etc." ..... Especially when what Le Parisien actually says is not what is claimed, what it says is: The case is however treated as a double murder and not as an Islamist attack. "As things stand, we do not think it is a terrorist attack or a murder motivated by the Islamic state," said police spokesman David Furtner . "It seems that the man was radicalized, but there were no third parties who ordered him to commit these murders, and the IS did not claim responsibility for them." ..... Two other sources were speculations that preceded police statements and I couldn't be bothered to check AFP when other sources were being so mis-used. Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors coming to this confusing discussion who want to look at one source in English can check this: [11] story in The Local, and should know that suspect is in custody and awaiting trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for pointing out that there is barely one source that supports this particular narrative, even if you fail to point out that the official police position has altered since this atatement was made. Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reflex (programming language)[edit]

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

I had tagged this as CSD A11(made up/found by page creator) but it was validly removed. I cannot find any independent reliable sources covering this programming language in depth; googling it only brings up YouTube videos of presentations of this language(which I presume were made by those creating it) and other brief mentions(like announcements of said presenations) 331dot (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're an encyclopedia, not a preprint server. This is a notable language, but it's too early as yet to say anything about it. Not even whether it will last out the week (What happened to Hack (programming language)?

Note too that it isn't RefleX (programming language) - that one's different. I think Ryan Trinkle's Reflex is another different one too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it might very well be notable some day, but way too soon. Wikipedia should not cover anything "currently" until it has been done enough that someone outside of it has written something. W Nowicki (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Sean Rivas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ramon Rivas (audio engineer)

Articles for deletion/Ramon Sean Rivas

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

Hello. This article is borderline WP:CSD A7 and WP:CSD G4 as Ramon Rivas (audio engineer) was deleted on 25 February 2017 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Rivas (audio engineer). Ramon Rivas is much certainly a gifted professional working in the shadows of giants, but neither the article content nor its sources show any sign of notability. To be clear I have not done much WP:BEFORE. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the creator of this article, I would have to agree that the article does borderline on general notability, but no independent reliable sources exist covering the subject in detail. So for the time being, it does not need its own article space. NaturalSelection (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject does have independent sources. The creator of this article was only focused on engineering and excluded the subject as a hip hop recording artist and record producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Delete. The sources are all first-party, non-WP:RS, and/or passing mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the nom's rationale, as well as searches not turning up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per RoySmith, my assessment of the sources is the same. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sipaayi (2016 film). The third relist failed to attract additional input, so I'm just going with the middle-of-the-road option. If events evolve and better sourcing appears in the future, no prejudice against moving this back. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Mahesh[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. This would be a PRODBLP case, but IMDB confirms he exists and has been in a film. —Guan aco 10:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and actor in one notable film fails WP:ACTOR so Draftify or Redirect to Sipaayi (2016 film) per WP:NOTYET and protect till the release of Garuda. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 13:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft has the lead in one film so move to draft until release of second film which will provide more coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing enough passing mentions, as well as some semi-in-depth stuff here. Combined with the Times of India source already in the article, I'd say that is good enough for GNG. Especially as we know more in depth stuff will come out with the next film that is in production. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect? There seems to be no policy-based reason for draftifying if a redirect can be created until he gains more notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Guatemala bilateral treaties[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a mirror of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Treaty Database. Also nominating:

Australia–Cuba bilateral treaties,
Australia–Denmark bilateral treaties LibStar (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. These are not notable topics, or an appropriate use of Wikipedia Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per nom. Wikipedia has articles on topics which are far less notable than this, "list of worst TV shows" for instance. A page which details international relations treaties is an important part of detailing the history of the nations who are a party to that treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.92.132 (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 58.104.92.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteand merge, the information could be put in under the Australia part of Foreign relations of Guatemala, there aren't that many bilateral treaties between these two countries, not enough for a whole page.Socerb102 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 possibility of a merger still exists. If somebody wants to pursue that, they can do so by discussing it on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association[edit]

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

I'm seeing a lot of these cases that seem rather mundane. I can't see how this is particularly notable for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This case was tried in 2010 by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a leading case with (to date) 242 citations in the canlii database. It would be a pity if the opinions of a few wikipedia editors were to overrule the inclusion here of a case which was joined by no fewer than six other Attorneys-General and eight distinct amicus curiae who together felt it to be a worthwhile case on which to spend their time and (for some, taxpayer) monies. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't really the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is an impeccably well-reasoned argument. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And one that doesn't explain how the article meets our criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your most recent sentence makes no sense. Spem Reduxit (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While my preference is to keep, since this case is cited [12] several times by academic sources, but the content should at least be merged to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario), which is the law challenged by this case. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the proposed merger
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People with Disability Australia[edit]

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

~~The article currently has no independent sources at all. A Google search shows only minimal mainstream media coverage, thus the notability of this organization is doubtful.~~ Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Withdraw nomination article has been improved with good (but hard to find) sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On the contrary, the organization title suffers from the use of generic terms, and recent changes have removed potentially useful information. These do not make the article suitable for deletion. The deletion proposal should be withdrawn. Current page status is not necessarily an indication of notability per WP:CONTN and time would be better spent improving the page. Tailored searches produce good independent sources. A search for the outgoing president Craig Wallace and "PWDA" returns 2230 Google search results alone, including national media, a federal Parliamentary Library Lecture, and a statement read to Parliament on the occasion of his resignation.^[1] Trankuility (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Macklin, Jenny (July 12, 2016). "Statement on resignation of PWDA's Craig Wallace". Parliament of Australia.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very significant WP:NEXIST, to support a much better, more in-depth article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My WP:BEFORE search turned up a bunch of passing mentions and "sound bites", nothing that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH, existence ≠ notability. I have tagged several points that need specific sourcing - if they can be filled it would be a keeper. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have filled them in. There may well be more and-or better references, but I know nothing about the organisation and specifically where to look for the ones you asked for. Aoziwe (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . After three relists, discussion does not appear to be any closer to consensus. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ferrazzi[edit]

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

Go through the Talk page, this page is filled with Promotion nonsense. no doubt written by some Paid editor. The aim is to make this No-consensus and keep the article. Not even a single article about this person found where notable media covered him, all about the promotion of his work, similar to paid editing made by wikipedia contributors. Complete misuse of encyclopedia. This person is non notable for Wiki standards, article is written like some promotional profile. Wiki is not social media to promote oneself. There would be thousands people in the world like him. Ca not compromise the credibility of wikipedia on this ground. book can be best selling but does not make a person Encyclopedic notable as it stands for. If we read the article coverage, it is definitely not significant. Light2021 (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP That the article is written "like some promotional profile" (which perhaps it is slightly, but can be easily fixed with some cleanup) is not a rationale for deletion. Nominator should have spent a few minutes doing a cursory search for Mr. Ferrazzi, and would have quickly realised that he meets GNG. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I have done, and not found any In-depth coverage by notable media established by Wikipedia. can you elaborate your sources for coverage? Light2021 (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed oozes promo. Sources are poor - mentions in passing, WP:INTERVIEW. Imho fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Kingoflettuce that the issue is more promotional cleanup than notability. I just removed content that could be borderline promotional, and tried to edit in such a way to preserve the gist and sourcing, without being promotional. Of further note, while hunting for sources, I found some info about a new company Ferrazzi founded called Yoi, in partnership with Zappos’ Tony Hsieh and Groupon’s Brad Keywell.[[13]] I'll set up a Google alert for Yoi and once there's mainstream media coverage, I'll add the info. Timtempleton (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Was just going through your profile. Several times you have found in the category of Paid editor. complete violation of Wikipedia, and clears your intention on writing about this individual without having any of the coverage proof. As there are none.Light2021 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding about http://wikn.co/ as a source of coverage? a blog with rank of "19,853,096"? and Google alert or partners or associate with any known individuals does not make anyone notable himself/ herself. Light2021 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP With the promo stuff cleaned up keep. A search shows he reaches notablity.Michael614 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please cite few notable media coverage you are referring to? and that also by wikipedia guidelines.
- Are we talking about these as In-depth and notable coverage?
- Fast Company : "Meet the Superconnectors: How the new mavens of networking are playing a different (and more generous) game."
- Forbes articles mentioned the name, such article are written everyday on Online version of Forbes " Ferrazzi believes it’s essential to “lead with generosity; lead with being of service to people. The more ‘of service’ you are, the more currency you have, and the more people will want to spend time with you.”
- Ny Times Books for purchase list?

I have not found any single source where this person has been covered for his notability and with in-depth coverage. Light2021 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no evidence of a WP:BEFORE Google source search in the nomination, which would have shown that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. Article has been here since 2006. Unscintillating (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has several articles from many years, does not make it significant, can you please provide notable, in-depth coverage if any? Light2021 (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article may be poorly written, I don't agree that it's overly promotional. Seems to be plenty of sources to show he passes WP:GNG: Irish Independent; Irish Examiner, Influencive, Forbes; Business Insider. And that’s just on pages 1 & 2 of the google search. The guy’s written for Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., Financial Times, Fortune, Huffington Post and Entrepreneur, all of which consider him an expert in his field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider and other sources are nothing relevant as not considered notable by Wikipedia. Forbes article is nothing in depth of this person. Light2021 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSPAM; the page exists to promote the subject's speaking gigs. Wikipedia is not a speakers' bureau. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. His book was on the NYT list of the top 10 one week only, and it was the "Advice and how-to" category. I do not consider that sufficient for notability as an author. Writing for various magazines is not enough either, no matter how prestigious the magazine. Most of the refs in the article are mere announcement of lectures. The two Irish newspaer articles written above are a combination of notices and promotion. It's not enough to find articles on Google, it's necessary to see what they actually say and how they are written. Based on hundreds of afds here, very few people whose main claim is motivational speaker ar have been considered notabble, and he is not exception. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 5 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 08:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one last time to generate a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any time on the NY Times list is significant, but primarily because at elast three of the cources already cited in the article seem in more than sufficient depth to pass the WP:GNG. And the find soures search reveals several others, blus at least some book sources. I don't relaly belive that a WP:BEFORE search was done here, or else everythign was jsut dismissed because marketing is this person's field, so "its all just marketing". Well there can be notable marketers, and here is one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

From what I can find on the RSN, BI is a RS, be as acareful with it as you would with any other source. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Thanks to Hugop777 and Lockley for improving the article during the debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Wine Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A purely local organisation. Being 200 years old and having notable members are not evidence of notability. I question whether it is notable even within the university itself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited from famous alumni Seasider91 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met, and as stated above, you can't inherit notability from event speakers or alumni. The previous AfD closed as "Redirect" but I don't see any justifiable reason to reinstate a redirect. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this society is a well-known society, not only within Cambridge but also within the international wine trade. This society gave rise to a number of famous alumni who got into wine related career after frequenting it. Notably Hugh Johnson, famous for being a wine writer said he "began his lifelong passion for wine as a member of The Wine and Food Society at Cambridge University". David Peppercorn, also a wine writer, was the president of this society in 1952 and decided to start a career in wine writing instead of law (he was reading law at Cambridge) after frequenting the wine society. A number of books and articles are mentionning the society whose members are competing in international blind wine tasting competitions around the world. Part of the history of this wine society along with the history of the Oxford University Wine Society has been documented in Reds, Whites & Varsity Blues, edited by Jennifer Segal and cited in this article. Some of the events organised by the society have been relayed in the press such as the 350th anniversary of Samuel Pepys mention of Chateau Haut-Brion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugop777 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've have a go at this, expanded and sourced some of it, but I'm not going to vote because it's still not notable. In its favor it's a real thing, yeah it's had a big impact in the world of British wine writers (....), and we seem to carry articles about other Cambridge clubs. --Lockley (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. some student societies at the most famous universities can be notable. This is one of them,because of its apparent influence DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly because of it apparent influence, but it still lacks good solid coverage, and fails WP:GNG. For example, the cited New York Times article about collegiate wine rivalry does not even mention the society, neither does the Wall Street Journal article. Actual mentions are in passing. --Bejnar (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonably well-sourced; enough at least to pass GNG Chetsford (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: I strongly disagree, please point to two independent reliable sources that contain significant coverage of the society. --Bejnar (talk) 03:22, 9 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 08:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. Artw (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss a potential merge/redirect instead of keeping/deleting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I agree there's clear significance in an article, and there exists no promotionalism which otherwise would be different. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pedestrian railroad safety in the United States. Sandstein 11:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mary T. Wojtyla[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. This incident did not receive any significant lasting coverage. The only news coverage that the incident received in reliable sources was in passing. The article states that an edited version of the video of Wojtyla's death has been shown at many Operation Lifesaver events, but I was unable to find any reliable source to support this. Of the sources currently in the article, the first is a family death notice, which does not help establish notability. The second is Find a Grave, which is not a reliable source. The third is a news article in The Chicago Tribune, which is a reliable source, but their coverage of the incident is routine and in passing. The fourth reference is LiveLeak, which is not a reliable source. Tdl1060 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is a notable event in the history of Pedestrian railroad safety in the United States. The article is very helpful for people to quickly access what happened in the widely shared video. This event happened before the widespread use of internet sources. It is clear based on forums that many people saw this video at Operation lifesaver events. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internet forums do not qualify as reliable sources, and do not help establish notability.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not being used to establish notability, using them as circumstantial evidence that the video is widely used in railway safety trainings. Here is another source citing the historical importance of the video http://www.ramseyhistory.org/2010/08/another-death-by-train/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pedestrian railroad safety in the United States, insufficient long-term significance for a stand-alone article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pedestrian railroad safety in the United States. The fact that this tragic, but otherwise routine accident was caught on film doesn't justify a stand-alone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject turns out to be unverifiable, and may be a hoax. Sandstein 12:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Diocese of Highveld[edit]

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

No sources and no ghits for either the diocese or Simonpierre Nnolumfu, the current incumbent. This is not a conventional diocese within the Catholic hierarchy but an "Autocephalous Catholic jurisdiction" (quoting from article). The creating editor has been repeatedly advised to add references to their articles, but has not done so. There appears to be a strong sense of "Ownership", as in the talk page message in response to a CSD nomination. PamD 07:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to nomination, the key point I didn't make: Does not appear to be Notable. PamD 07:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources (the WP:BEFORE): there is a Facebook page St. Mary's Abbey Catholic Diocese of Highveld, but the web address it offers is http://www.catholicdioceseofhighveld.org/ which is a dead link. And the bishop has a Linked-in page. But no reliable sources findable by me. PamD 08:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is interesting, and the bishop has a page in Who's Who of Southern Africa - which describes itself "an online platform that assists professionals in creating, managing and growing their personal brand and reputation" PamD 08:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given the history of this page/topic, it seems no-one has been able to find any independent reference to it, so deletion is obviously appropriate. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable hoax. This is an interesting one. The Roman Catholic Church (as far as I know) does not provide any public listing of dioceses or sees. A frequently-used reference for Wikipedia's articles about dioceses (for example, List of Catholic dioceses in Great Britain) is the website GCatholic.org, which is (apparently) a comprehensive and frequently updated list of Catholic Church bodies and institutions. GCatholic does not include Highveld in its list of South African dioceses, nor does it list Highveld as a titular see.

I am interested in this topic but not an expert, and I'm not saying that GCatholic would hold the same weight as an official Church record, if one could be found. But combine this with the lack of sources uncovered elsewhere and I would argue that this article fails the most elementary tests of WP:Verifiability. A Train^talk 10:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per request by krian. Otherwise, GNG and NACTOR meet. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navi (Impersonator)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Editor didn't read the article, BEFORE, and assess the sources. The refs establish notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn After going through all the sources in article carefully (except BBC, I skimmed), and an internet search, i thought it was a case of WP:BIO1E, and WP:DEGRADE. But after KGirlTrucker81's comment, I did a thorough (and a lot time consuming) search, and I realised this is not a case of degradability. Subject is notable. I apologise for the inconvenience. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M. Liju[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of a political party's local organizing committee in one specific region is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and this features neither the substance nor the depth of sourcing needed to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat above no sign of passing NPOL or general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Short[edit]

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

Per WP:AUTHOR. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 07:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion is unfounded. Kayla Short is considered a notable person per Wiki guidelines. Please refer to references, and Fashion Blog for impact assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halifax1749 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A person qualifies for a Wikipedia article when she's the subject of reliable source coverage. "Fashion Blog" is a blog, not a media outlet, so it can't cover off notability, and the only sources present in the article are a directory of her own contributions to another blog, her own primary source website about herself, and a local alt-weekly's "Best Local Stuff" reader poll — which means the only source that's independent of her is a blurb. A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article by self-publishing her own web presence; she qualifies for an article when she's been given enough attention by media independent of her to pass WP:GNG, but none of the sourcing present here shows anything of the sort whatsoever. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better — but this, as written, isn't even beginning to show the type, let alone the volume, of sourcing required. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD G11 - Article repeatedly recreated. Sock accounts tagged . Alexf^(talk) 17:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Akshaya Pvt. Ltd[edit]

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

no major awrds, refs are notices and PR, nothing more, nothing more to be expected. Blatent conflict of ibterst in the contributor, apparently an emlpoyee, DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 17 Julyy 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has WP:RS by The Hindu and Forbes. However the page author seems to be an employee of the company. It seems to be a case of WP:COI. Anoptimistix (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G4). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Hoffmann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Previously deleted by AfD less than a month ago, now recreated by the same WP:SPA editor. The article text is packed with uncited superlatives and generally promotional tone. Note there is also a Draft:Martina Hoffmann, also featuring promotional text. I am not seeing sources to meet WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, so see no reason to overturn the recent AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete as G4. There is no reason this needs to go through AfD again, nothing has changed from the last version and none of the reasons have been addressed. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete as G4 per Chrissymad - GretLomborg (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stitching AKN[edit]

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

Largely nonsensical article with an unclear subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Nonsense article, with no reference BetterSmile:D 06:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A rather incomprehensible article without sources. It looks very much as though it's a machine translation from Dutch, in which case it may also infringe copyright. If the subject is notable then it will be much better to start a new article from scratch than to try to salvage this one. (Incidentally, the word "stitching" in the title appears to be a mistranslation of "stichting", which despite looking similar actually has a quite different meaning.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the other editing from the same editor, I have decided it is more likely to be just a Dutch child whose competence at English is very low, rather than a machine translation. However, that doesn't substantially change what I wrote above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms nations. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evermeet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms nations. BOZ (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The article remains of limited quality since the previous AfD many years ago. I we have articles on the books about the city, and that seems reasonable. I'm not convinced that we need an article on the city itself. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect name only to List of Forgotten Realms nations. Not notable & there's nothing to merge as the article does not cite independent sources. The article content is unsourced original research and fancruft. Two citations offered are both to in-universe publications. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge : Delete as it doesnt have independent reliable references,else merge with Evermeet: Island of Elves BetterSmile:D 06:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zhentarim. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Darkhold[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Zhentarim. BOZ (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable. There's nothing to merge as the article does not cite independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zhentarim. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2019 Winter Universiade. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey at the 2019 Winter Universiade[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. An article about an event in a competition 2 years in the future. No non-WP:ROUTINE sources. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for crystal ball reasons. --Lockley (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into 2019 Winter Universiade with possibility of building out as competition nears and more info becomes available. A quick google search does show there's verifiable articles about the event. It is the next Winter Universiade so does fall in line with conventions for large-scale international sporting events, creating the article a few years in advance. This does not fail WP:CRYSTAL which explicitly states that future events can be included on Wikipedia if they are notable and almost certain to take place. --Bhockey10 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2019 Winter Universiade until information other than the venues is available. Also, a list of venues should be added to the main article as per other multi-sport competitions. If venues are not added to the main article for whatever reason, then keep this as it will have information not available in the main article. But that info should be in the main article, so ideally add it and redirect for now. Smartyllama (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2019 Winter Universiade for now. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after two relists. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pappy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The contents fail to show effort of popularity or circuit of fame whatsoever. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I said at the first AfD, while tragic, all the press is related to his shooting, which would be a case of WP:BIO1E. Closed as no consensus, the single "keep" !vote was based on a single article, which ignored the fact that the article was focused on the rapper's shooting. Again, going to BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources, there are plenty in Google news search shown above (it isn't necessary to reproduce them) the Vice article here is significant coverage about his whole life not just his shooting and states that he was famous before he was killed with over a million and half downloads on soundcloud so WP:BIO1E does not apply Atlantic306 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the significant coverage of periods of his life other than the fatal shooting. here is another one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 68.189.200.18 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as I found this to be more unnoticeable as an artist, with no popularity at all. BJPlaya10 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above rationale is not a qualifier for speedy deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not for profiles/ biographies. nothing worthy for encyclopedia Light2021 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a meaningful rationale for deletion - Wikipedia is for biographies (among other kinds of articles), and this article should be evaluated according to the criteria on WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the appropriate sublists of List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001. A Train^talk 10:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb blasts in Parachinar since 2007[edit]

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

Completely arbitrary. Fails to establish its notability. Who said Bomb blasts should be there? and why since 2007? Greenbörg (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Sources:

Shias in Pakistan's Parachinar caught in the middle of proxy wars, DW [14]
Sixth attack on Shias in Parachinar highlights growing intolerance in Pakistan Hindustan Times [15]E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: We could have article on Persecution of Shia Muslims in Pakistan but can't have this arbitrary pick. Greenbörg (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a series of notable bombings, and as per WP:PRESERVE the proper course is to keep this article on a notable topic and to move the discussion about how best to improve it, either by refocusing it as a broader discussion of anti-Shia persecution that would include terrorism, or keeping and improving this article by connecting it to one or more broader articles on the situation of Shia in Pakistan. Those questions can be raised here, but should, ultimately, be handled on the talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful info, possibly into Terrorism in Pakistan or List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001. Some of the sources included are non-RS and a lot of the analysis looks like OR. If kept or merged, the "Reasons behind attacks" section will need to either be properly referenced or removed completely, as right now its only source is a polemical Wordpress blog.PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the useful content. Original research should be deleted. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As a nominator, I will be happy with a merge. Greenbörg (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reason behind this Page[edit]

Parachinar is a Shiite majority area and since 2007 there are frequent bomb explosions in a small area which need attention. Since 2007, the bomb explosions in Parachinar started because the people of here fought against the Taliban, ( War against Taliban in Parachinar )and Taliban & its allies are now bombed to take revenge. Social media regarding Parachinar is full of propaganda, most of these propaganda may cause more explosions in future, so it is important to tell the world, the facts. Haider4Pak (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's all fine and good, but per WP:SOAP, wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, regardless of the worthiness of the cause. Reporting reliably sourced information is fine, but not issue advocacy, and as it stands the entire "Reason behind the attacks" section is sourced only to a non-reliable source, and several of the other references go to web forums or facebook, which also aren't exactly reliable. Whether the article is kept or merged, the sourcing needs to be improved.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus at this time is for a merge, but two potential merge targets have been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as a copyvio RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ali Khan (actor)[edit]

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

unsourced promotional bio with OR. could be speedy deleted due to copyvio [16]. Saqib (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, those who expressed an opinion to delete did so out of regret and minor frustration they were unable to improve the article. If any of the participants would like this moved to draft space, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eriko Satō (footballer)[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of her passing WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG, nor any evidence confirming the birth and death dates listed in the article. The one reference in the article doesn't mention her. Joeykai (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also struggling to find anything other than Wiki Mirrors - no evidence she even exists, let alone is notable. Giant Snowman 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for national team. She exist, reference mentioning her. 62.140.137.140 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Certainly evidence she existed; listed in the ja:WP article for this school [17] for example. She was a victim of the 2011 tsunami... but even so I can't immediately find any Japanese sources above the blog level which mention her. No newspapers, for example, so given the one-sentence nature of the stub, I think best to delete it. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many results searching in Japanese. Profile: https://blog-001.west.edge.storage-yahoo.jp/res/blog-8e-ff/shimizumasaki196868/folder/1547857/32/51977632/img_0 62.140.137.140 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is kind of sad. She was a footballer who was captain of an established woman's team (Kumamoto Renaissance FC) before women's football took off in Japan. She died in the 3.11 disaster at the young age of 31. There is no doubt she existed and played for the team (here is the team announcement of her death). What I can't find is any record that she played for the national team. The Japanese wikipedia article does not mention it (ja:佐藤恵利子), nor does the team announcement. The reference in the English article to her being on the national team in 2008 refers to the wrong Eriko Sato (佐藤衣里子 not 佐藤恵利子--see [18] and [19]). All else on the net is just from blogs. While I feel sorry about this, I am afraid she does not pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Femina Miss India 2015. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aafreen Vaz[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Lacks GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has reliable sources. Additionally the title of "Beauty Pagent Winner" itself proves the articles notability. Anoptimistix (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Femina Miss India 2015 The winner of Femina Miss India takes part in Miss World as the representative of India. But Aafreen is not the winner. Instead, she is supposed to take part in Miss Supranational, which doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Other winners of Miss Supranational (at the world level) do not have articles either. So a redirect is good enough.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a lack of the level of sustained coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD-R to Femina Miss India 2015, which lists the subject as Femina Miss India Supranational 2015. Source searches are demonstrating that the subject is presently at the threshold of a WP:BLP1E situation per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Medina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable state-level politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Medina has run for state office twice, losing both times. According to the article, she has never held public office. Her only other claim to notability is a minor controversy regarding a statement she made on Glenn Beck's show, which she quickly retracted. Note: The previous deletion nomination for this article name was for a disambiguation page, and not for Medina's article itself. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; I don't see any claim to notability other than losing in Republican primaries. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only discernible claim of notability here is being a non-winning candidate in party primaries, which is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the referencing is 9/13 dependent on primary sources rather than reliable ones — and of the four citations that are to reliable sources, one of them is an unnecessary reduplication of one of the other three. But three reliable sources isn't enough reliable sources to make a person notable just for being a non-winning candidate for political office, because every non-winning candidate for political office could always show three pieces of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per first editor and nom, small level politician.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Brin. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Giving Plague[edit]

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

Delete Declined prod; no sources to indicate this work meets the general notability guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's taken you 8 years to think this might need deletion ? Must be worthy Dave Rave (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, there is no deadline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability, and sorry Dave, bad articles don't earn tenure by avoiding deletion. --Lockley (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see several mentions in the Google Scholar results, but I've not seen anything that screams notability. At the very least, it should be Merged to Brin's own article. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the merge proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the author's article, as proposed. If we had more references to show that the work is notable in and of itself, you might have an argument to keep. But I'm not finding that here. The author is unquestionably notable, so a merge/redirect is the best option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author, David Brin; not independently notable. A plausible search term, but the article is all plot and does not list any sources. No usable content would be lost due to a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Seezy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is one year old, and has no sourced content. The article contains one outside link - which is one of those do-it-yourself webdesign sites, therefore lacks any credibility, nor does the site contain any information of value. Even the content of the article shows no reason to keep, as it is simply a list of people that this DJ has worked with - all unsourced. Kellymoat (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nominator Comment - page was previously nominated for AfD one year ago. The nomination was closed because a sockpuppet was the nominator. The only contribution to the AfD stated that the only mentions of this guy is on social media, which is still the case today. Also worth noting, the article appears to be written by one user, and that user's only contributions have been to this article or to add this name to other articles. Kellymoat (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to back up these claims of notability. Google News turns up nothing for this person under their given and DJ names. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - I don't know what the problem is? I really don't know why you/they wanna delete the site of my client DJ Seezy? He is a (underrated) Producer from Germany and really worked with this artits via sending them beats and these listed artitst picked the beats for there tapes! We all know that the new producers in the hip hop community don't get the recognition they deserve especially producer from overseas who placed beats on notable tapes for well known artits. He is right now on that point to level up his career and this site helps him. 00:26 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more evidence as to why this should be deleted.

1. First, you have a COI. Big no-no.
2. This is an encyclopedia. We report on events of the past. Not the future. This site isn't here for free advertising. Kellymoat (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read? The list of the production discography are events from the past! What I mean is he is on the point to get more recognition for his work now and this has nothing to do with wikipedia but people here can read what he done so far! What is wrong with that?

What's wrong with that? Spend $50 on your own web-domain. WP isn't your own personal ad agency. Kellymoat (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that this is my own personal ad agency. As I see you have been hard dogged to delete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaza716 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My neighbor has a Grammy and doesn't have an article. My late-ex is in the Hall of Fame of both of the organizations in that industry and only has a stub-article. The article doesn't even have the right birth name, and I can't correct/edit it because I have a COI. Me, myself, I recently found my name on the unclaimed royalties section of AFM & SAGAFTRA. I received a six-figure check, all because I moved a couple times, some checks were sent to the old addresses and never cashed. I do not have an article.

Do you think that your "client" is at that level? His career, as of today (not what could be in the future), is considered encyclopedic, while the 3 mentioned above are not? This is an encyclopedia. It is not a celebrity fansite. But, again, you have a COI, you should not be the one creating, editing, or debating the article. Kellymoat (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. No significant indication of notability, references are profile pages. Hayman30 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is a lack of notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no real notability and lack of sources to support the claims in the article. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was wondering if an admin can close this Afd. The article creator, primary content provider, and admitted "agent" of the subject has taken it upon himself to delete all content (except the Afd template) from the article. It is now a blank page with an AfD box. Kellymoat (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Night Guard[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Not yet broadcast TV shows are seldom considered notable. Promotional tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & WP:CRYSTAL. — fortunavelut luna 10:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDb says it was broadcast in 2011 in South Africa, so it's not an unreleased series. There's coverage in South African media although not sure how high quality sources like these are:[20][21][22] It's a horrid, promotional article so I don't blame people too much for not doing WP:BEFORE, and WP:TNT may still apply. Unless someone wants to do a total rewrite. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – ref. #2 concerns a completely unrelated series. That leaves ref #1 which is IMDb, which itself cannot be used to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. Therefore, the article is effectively unsourced. So no notability demonstrated + a promotional tone = delete. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 20:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guangdong Loongon[edit]

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

non-notable toy company. The trademark dispute does not show notability by itself. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not notable; per nom a small trademark dispute does not establish notability, and searches turn up nothing better.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a notable company, the Danish press is consistently covering this company because of its copies of Lego. Just this weekend there was more coverage Lego knock-offs from China spreading to the European market. This maker also licenses creations of popular Lego creators as well, unlike other brands and it has its own non-infringing brands, such as Cogo. This manufacturer sells a ton of product, much more than the other Lego compatible brick companies that do have Wikipedia articles:

Why does Wikipedia include these European and North American companies and exclude larger Chinese companies? I do not understand the reasoning for that, although maybe some Wikipedians have played with these smaller North American and European brands and thus have emotional affinity to them and that personal connection is lacking from this Chinese family of brands?

Also, this is not a trademark dispute as but rather an intellectual property dispute, Lepin took the full designs of the Lego sets in question. --Nipnop88 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly the reason I created this article is that many people were confused about who was manufacturing Lepin and Xingbao. Some people were saying it was Meizi Model. see here, ". In a post on Facebook, there are images of a company called Xingbao (星堡) who is owned by Meizi Model (美致模型), which is the same company that owns LEPIN" But the manufacturer is actually Loongon. This is why Wikipedia exists - to clarify questions that confuse me and provide a reference so that when people talk about the multitude of Chinese brands of Lego clones they can get correct answers. Already someone is covertly editing the Loongon page to remove mentions of Xingbao here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guangdong_Loongon&diff=prev&oldid=788562340 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guangdong_Loongon&type=revision&diff=788562566&oldid=788562502 -- maybe this person could clarify the relationships between these subbrands? --Nipnop88 (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nipnop88 Any additional details you could include from Denmark's media (home land of Lego) ? Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles I found in the Dutch media:

- http://cphpost.dk/news/business/lego-knock-offs-from-china-spreading-to-the-european-market.html "Lego knock-offs from China spreading to the European market"
- http://cphpost.dk/news/business/fierce-copyright-battle-mars-legos-push-in-china.html "Fierce copyright battle mars Lego’s push in China: Lepin producing toys that look exactly like those produced by Lego."
- http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/falske-lego-klodser-spreder-sig-hastigt-i-europa "False Lego bricks is spreading rapidly in Europe"
- http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/eksperter-overraskende-lego-kopier-faar-lov-sprede-sig "Experts: Surprising that Lego copies allowed to spread"
- http://borsen.dk/nyheder/generelt/artikel/1/347468/det_skriver_medierne_kapitalfonde_har_fuld_fart_paa_opkoeb.html "Chinese Lego replica Lepin has been successful in spreading its copy blocks to European markets through online stores. This happens even though Lego in late 2016 sued Lepin by a Chinese court. (Page 3)"
- http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/kinas-stenrige-netkonge-udfordrer-lego "China's wealthist business man challenges Lego: One of China's richest business men, Jack Ma, earn money to spread Lego copies across the country." - about AliExpress being used to sell Lepin.
- http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/kopifirma-ignorerer-legos-sagsanlaeg "Copy Company ignores Legos lawsuit: Lego has sued Lepin, but copy the company continues to sell imitations."
- https://www.blick.ch/news/wirtschaft/blick-testet-aliexpress-die-chinesische-amazon-kopie-nicht-mal-die-haare-sind-echt-id5378426.html "Not even the hair is genuine. The prices on the Chinese online store Aliexpress are alluringly cheap. But often you get fake goods, as the BLICK test shows." (Swiss media)

--14:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipnop88 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because promotionalism nearly always outweighs our policies and it's because these sources (1-8) are only general news, and not the significant coverage we need in notability, even when considering it was a noticed lawsuit. The author has signs of a possible COI, but even if not, there's enough to support removal. In the current article, 1-3 and 5 are literally listings and the 4 and 6 are general news. As always, there's Draftspace if anyone wants to restart a better and improved article. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - I have no conflict of interest. What do you think of the 8 Dutch language articles I linked to above? --Nipnop88 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Nipnop88. The company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no promotionalism. The sources and the Wikipedia article both discuss the company's getting sued by Lego for allegedly manufacturing and distributing counterfeit Lego sets. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The articles said to be in Dutch media are actually in Swiss and Danish media (which makes more sense for Lego). Matt's talk 08:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 10:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combimac[edit]

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

No evidence for any notability for this manufacturer of electric motors. They may be used in many different applications but that , of itself, does not equate to notability. Only two references, one of which is back to Wikipedia and the other a newspaper cutting. Searches reveal nothing that would count to notability - own web -site Linkedin, other Wikipedia articles etc. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your input. What would increase the notability? Compared to Wikipedia pages of other manufacturers and their history in our naval business, exampleThales_Group or Schottel_(company), we do not spot genuine differences. We have a Linkedin site, would this help linking it to Wikipedia? --Duc1199 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duc1199, see WP:GNG and WP:CORP - particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. An organisation requires multiple in-depth sources which are completely independent of the company in question. Whether other companies have articles is irrelevant to whether this one is notable, but the ones you linked have independent sources listed and one is a Fortune 500 company. Combimac currently has far too few sources to support claims of notability, as the only ones provided are to a local paper covering a minor industrial dispute 45 years ago. Also, by use of the pronoun 'we' I assume you are editing while being connected to the company. This is strongly discouraged as to avoid potential conflicts of interest, and to keep Wikipedia free of advertising and promotional material. El Pharao (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feed back and the link WP:CORP en WP:CORDEPTH. The information is clear and understood. We (a group of people gathering the information) just started and are trying to get adjusted with the do and don"ts on this platform. We will try to amend the information in line with the guidelines on organizations and companies. By the way: the dispute was not minor as it lasted more than 6 months and it became the longest in Dutch history. The union said they would put the company out of business and so they did. The attitude of the unions changed afterwards, as instead of saving jobs these were destroyed. The University of Groningen still provides the example as teaching material on unions. It became regular national news in the papers and television and the company was re-erected with help of the former Prime Minister.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duc1199 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article has been significantly copy edited after the nomination for deletion, and several new sources were added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants to continue the merge discussion, the talk page can be used for that Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowel management[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The biggest problem with this article is that it does not define its subject, "bowel management". "Bowel management" might mean "the practices which encourage regular bowel movements". However, this article does not take that perspective. Instead, it has some information about unusual treatments for unusual medical conditions, as for people who use daily enemas for all their bowel movements. I think this is mostly about treating fecal incontinence and could redirect to there.

The first two citations from emedicine do not have information on this general subject. The other citations are for very specific medical conditions.

Some information here might be salvaged to merge to other articles, but I think this article is too incoherent to persist. If anyone wishes to keep this topic, I would like to see the subject defined and information not matching that subject deleted. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect: I feel that some of the information is worthy enough to merge to other appropriate articles. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a major topic in the field of disability, this article can easily be expanded by looking outside of the narrow confines of exclusively medical sources. For many disabled people bowel management is simply an activity of daily living, not a medical procedure.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point, this deletion nomination is clearly lacking in WP:BEFORE. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I still think the article is unclear and I feel like I made a fair go at research, but thanks for sharing these links. While I find many of these and other sources to be poor, I at least came to understand what was being discussed here. I used these sources to develop the lead of the article to try to give it a unique focus. Thanks for your patience in hearing me out and responding. And yes, it is true - PubMed is a hard place to find articles on this topic but much more is in general Google search. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because despite the nominator withdrawing, an !vote exists for merging or redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Dodger67. The subject seems notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shakuntala Santhiran[edit]

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

Non-notable broadcast personality - absolutely no coverage that I can find in RS or otherwise. The only sources I find are Facebook, screenshots and Linkedin, none of which satisfy WP:GNG. In addition, the only source in the article is Linkedin and the profile does not exist. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up virtually nothing in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator correct on all counts. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are nonexistent, fails GNG. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted per G4, and page salted RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solutionary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a neutral point of view treatment of the views of secondary reliable sources. Partly a neologism, partly WP:POLEMIC, partly original research, and partly promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons listed above. This is the third nomination, and the article is just as problematic as the last two times. Choard1895 (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just as bad as the previously deleted article(s), let's try speedying it -- and salting. I've tagged it WP:G4. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Condes[edit]

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

Non-notable artist.Promotional article. Winged Blades^Godric 09:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 00:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and moved to Al-Dhira'. There's some question here about whether the topic is notable at all, but the bigger issue seems to be with the name. Arabic names that get transliterated into English tend to have variable spellings (that's actually true of any pair of languages, not just Arabic to English), but from what I see here, most people think Al Dhira' is a better choice.

I'm leaving a redirect behind, if for no other reason than to keep the hat-note in Alderaan from going red.

If people want to continue to discuss better names and/or possible merges, that can all be done on the article talk page without need for further WP:AFD involvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alderaan (astronomy)[edit]

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

The article itself fails to give any references supporting the existence or use of this name, and I couldn't find anything. The article does link to a source for an asterism with a similar name. I couldn't find any popular sources using the name. In short, this name doesn't appear to exist and fails WP:GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 00:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is currently fairly poor, but there are references to be found. Here's one [23] where entries 2 and 3 on the linked page 559 extensively refer to al-dhira' . Here's another book [24] that calls it "the Dhirá'án", and cites Lane's Arabic Lexicon, page 962. This one [25] calls it "Aldryan", as well, citing the Lexicon again. On the current only reference at the Wikipedia page, it says "Al Dhira' ", the plural of which is (at least in some transliterations) Alderaan. It definitely exists and passes WP:GNG. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 06:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seemingly zero sources support the name "Alderaan", not even the one already in the article. The sources may support Al-Dhira and the like. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you support a Move to Al-Dhira' or some other name? --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 20:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is my basic issue. Lots of references for all sorts of Arabic names, but not a single source that says any of them decline or transliterate into Alderaan. I don't know if they are equivalent to Alderaan or not, but without a source it seems a step too far for Wikipedia to say they do. A move to one of the names that is actually given in a source would be fine. Allen, the only source currently in the article, is considered a (somewhat antiquated) bible in this respect, so whatever it says would work. Note that what the article currently says bears little relation to what Allen says. The original creator of the article did want to make the connection to Star Wars, but the OR about that is long gone. Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's an alternative name for the two brightest stars in Canis Minor and two from Gemini (constellation), then judging by the mentions already at Canis Minor like "asterism Shuiwei, which literally means "water level". Combined with additional stars in Gemini, Shuiwei represented an official" and "The Aztec calendar was related to their cosmology. The stars of Canis Minor were incorporated along with some stars of Orion and Gemini into an asterism associated with the day called "Water".", it probably belongs at Canis Minor. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Keep. NOTE: sources that are about the topic support its notability, even if they do not use the name that we use for our article. If there are lots of sources with Arabic names, or with the name Al-Dhira, or others, and these are all clearly about the same topic then we keep the article. The issue of none of the sources using the name we do is a possible justification for a move request but not for deletion. Edit: Note that I would support a merge to Canis Minor. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources that use this name, and this is an obscure term for a constellation, not an astronomical object. It likely only has a page due to its name coinciding with the planet from Star Wars. If the additional references on this page are relevant to Canis Minor they can be added to that article, but I don't support any merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Abbas[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability so fails WP:GNG. No award won. Not much we could write about him without sources. Greenbörg (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete searched the name in few RS but nothing came up. Fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up nothing. Nominated for a promotional award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable indication that establishes notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that there is not enough significant, independent coverage of the subject. Google searches do not turn up much additional information. Malinaccier (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Haroon[edit]

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

Not much available for him to prove his notability. Fails WP:GNG. Can be a case for Speedy deletion but I thought discussion would be better. Greenbörg (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in RS. fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - winner of a "promotional award" with virtually zero coverage from independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable indication that establishes notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Ali[edit]

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

The straight case for speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG. Not a single source to verify this claim. Greenbörg (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is a straight forwad speedy deletion case, whi is it not tagged for speedy deletion instead of being at AfD? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 09:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:GNG . couldn't found any RS. it seems the IMDb profile is not of this guy. --Saqib (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. The article claims notability (won a major industry award), but I don't think the award itself meets our criteria. As a claim of importance, it dodges WP:CSD#A7, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Miller (journalist)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Sources are his personal website, a lecture he once did, and a passing mention about an unnotable online website he made. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Independent authoritative sources are not apparent for either academic or author notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage of his books: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico. He's quoted numerous places as a spokesperson for The College Fix, which he founded. [26]. Note: See my disclosure. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your admission of ~~being a paid editor with~~ having a COI. I don't think this article shows enough notability for WP:Author, just two reviews of a book on football. Don't be discouraged though, I am sure there is plenty of good work ahead of you. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

So everyone is fully aware: I am not a paid editor and I have not been paid to edit this article. My disclosure is that I am a contributor to The College Fix, which Miller founded. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as certainly enough. Rpclod noted the need of independent substance sources and they have now been availably shown. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Is a review of a book somebody has written, or quoting that book, evidence of notability of the author? I don't believe it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @PeterTheFourth: One review by itself is not enough for notability. Multiple reviews, especially in high-profile publications and of multiple books, are evidence of notability per WP:AUTHOR #3 ("subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and 4c ("significant critical attention"), as well as likely providing the in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. Now, in the case of the subject,
- The Big Scrum was reviewed in the NYT [27], National Review [28], Fox News [29], Publishers Weekly [30], among other sources.
- The First Assassin didn't have any noteworthy reviews that I found
- A Gift of Freedom had an academic-journal review [31] but nothing mainstream that I found
- Our Oldest Enemy was in the NYT again [32], Foreign Affairs [33], Publishers Weekly [34], National Review [35], among others.
- The Unmaking Of Americans was reviewed by Foreign Affairs [36], Publishers Weekly [37], and Kirkus Reviews [38] among others.

So with three solid hits, I think he clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. The other two lesser-known books don't help, but they don't hurt either (if a subject is notable for something, it doesn't matter that they're not notable for something else). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"That a book as shoddy and biased as this one should be published by a reputable press is eminently regrettable." Ouch. Still, this does establish that he's an author of sorts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, "notable" and "respected" may be two completely different things. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Collection 2000[edit]

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

Non notable compiliation album. This was merely one in a long series of albums released by one company with songs by a particular artist. Not even an official Ricky Martin release Gbawden (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. I might have supported a redirect but there are "Hit Collection 2000" compilations for other artists. gongshow talk 18:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUMS. As noted above, the compilation was unofficial, and appears to be one of literally dozens of identically titled single-artist compilation albums created for the Russian market [39]. Richard3120 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Dittman[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, appears to be only notable for movie reviews in 2005. Fails GNG IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. Dittman is spoken of or quoted as a critic in multiple books and news sources... like a poor man's Roger Ebert. The project is served by this being better sourced, not by its deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some more sources to the article. Basically, the contrast between the frequency with which Dittman was quoted in movie ads and the obscurity of his work otherwise led to his receiving profiles in some reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the article is best Kept and improved upon. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Quest[edit]

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

Promotional article for the camp and its sponsor. NOT ADVOCACY is basic policy, regardless of quibbles about notability The promotionalism is evident by the photos of routine camp activity, the details of camp activities, the excessive detail about spin-offs, and such phrases as " a space where children who are already nonreligious can feel comfortable and accepted." the elaborate discussion about the meaning of their logo, and the paragraph about " Murrow Indian Children's Home donation". DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blatant WP:PROMOTION. Rrachet (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Of all the sources, most are primary and autobiographical. Only two or three are from secondary sources, and of those, none are neither not about the camp itself nor are routine. alphalfalfa^(talk) 14:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I don't see so much advocacy or promotion, just a "fair enough" description of the camp and its activities, which is somehow notable. It sure can be improved with extra sources and the like, but not deleted. MaeseLeon (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I don't see this article as "promotional" any more than other articles devoted to similar educational organizations and events. Camp Quest events are conducted by disparate groups of people, and involve a large number of children and adults in several different countries. The article would certainly benefit from press articles from international sources, but it deserves the chance to be improved.VaDawn (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an improve. I agree with the contents of the original nomination. The article is poorly written. It can be re-written to to fit within Wikipedia guidelines. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, than I would re-vote to keep it. :) After thoroughtly re-reading the article, I don't see anything especially promotional, it's more of an introduction and a pretty neutral description of what they do at that camp. Actually, it's way less biased that many religious and religious activities-related articles. If it's guilty of something, it's guilty of being a too-plain explanation of the activity. But camp Quest is somehow notable and the article is pretty fair and properly referenced. MaeseLeon (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve. Once again I agree with the comments about the logo & Murrow Indian Children's Home donation. I have edited the page to reflect this. To be honest I don't understand why the section about th Murrow Indian Children's Home donation wasn't just deleted anyway. I'm not concerned either way about the other issues raised the deletion nomination. The page definitely needs improvement, but not deletion. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Hakeem[edit]

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

Was dePRODed due to having a raft of references, but a closer examination reveals that none of them are RS, especially if the social media sites and concert sites are been removed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be helpful if social media links that are against policy are removed from the article to help people assess it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nudging Kudpung --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The referencing here is far too strongly tied to primary sources and blogs, with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. Neither WP:NMUSIC (for his work as a musician) nor WP:CREATIVE (for his work in radio) hands a person an automatic notability freebie just because he exists — he needs to actually achieve something that constitutes a claim of notability, and even more importantly that has to be supported by reliable sources and not just by his own PR materials. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but literally nothing here is enough to get him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the uncontested sources provided. I see there is a merger discussion underway and quality concerns can be raised on talk or directly addressed by editing the article Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Media Network[edit]

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

Ridiculous blatant promotion. nothing significant about it. Light2021 (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTYELLOW, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, with a pile of WP:PROMO thrown in. — fortunavelut luna 10:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: verging on G11. DrStrauss talk 12:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to a G11. I'd decline that instantly if someone tried that. Terrible assessment of this article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, the article meets WP:GNG. Quidster4040 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory-like listing complete with 'Products & Service' type of content. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure or investor prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in violation of WP:NOTYELLOW.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Herbert, Daniel (2014). Videoland: Movie Culture at the American Video Store. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 209–210. ISBN 0520279611. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The book notes:
  
  Two purchases in the late 2000s demonstrate [Macrovision]'s changing agenda and broad approach to information management: the All Media Guide in 2007 and Gemstar-TV Guide in 2008. The All Media Guide (AMG) started off as the brainchild of Michael Erlewine, an eccentric personality who developed a passion for music and astrology in the 1960s. After founding a company that made software for astrological charts in 1977, Erlewine began exploring ideas about music guides and metadata in the early 1990s, just as the CD format was taking hold in the recorded music industry. Frustrated by bad labeling on CDs, he endeavored to create a database of musical recordings that would provide accurate information as well as critical evaluations. Thus AMG was originally founded as the All Music Guide in 1991 and the company has its makeshift headquarters in Big Rapids, Michigan.
  AMG expanded in scope and size over the course of the decade. In 1994, the company began producing the All Movie Guide, which largely resembled other movie guides of the era and also put a version on the Internet. They even coordinated with the editors of VideoHound, across the state in Detroit, on a volume of screen biographies. In 1998, the company added the All Game Guide to its list of publications/websites, putting it squarely in the business of multimedia reviews. The company relocated to Ann Arbor in 1999, home to the University of Michigan, hoping to find a larger pool of educated pop culture fans for its labor force. AMG continued to expand its operations in the 2000s, primarily moving into media recognition and metadata licensing. It unveiled the LASSO media recognition software in 2006, which enables different media devices to reconigze the exact CD or DVD that is inserted into them. For the consumer, this means that when you enter "Abbey Road" or Pulp Fiction (1994) into a hardware device, the device recognizes it as that particular disc, as if by magic. In this respect, AMG facilitated the much-hyped technological convergence of the 2000s by allowing hardware devices to reconigze software. Not only did AMG license this capability to a number of different electronics manufacturers, but it also expanded the licensing of its review material. As of 2007, AMG licensed material to over 25,000 different online and brick-and-mortar retail outlets. It counted AOL, Yahoo, MSN, and the New York Times among its online customers and Amazon, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, and Blockbuster Video among its retail customers. Morever, various parts of the AMG database were licensed by the radio giant Clear Channel and a range of computer-based media players, including iTunes, MusicMatch, Windows Media Player, and Napster.
  Thus by the time Macrovision bought AMG in 2007, both companies had large operations in the realm of entertainment metadata, including software protection, media recognition, and content reviews. ...
2. Bowe, Brian J. (2007-01-24). "Make it or break it". Metro Times. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Here, in this soulless part of town, sits a soulless-looking edifice that appears to be some sort of light industrial complex. But this, the world headquarters of Internet giant All Media Guide, is more like the most gargantuan reliquary of pop culture imaginable.
  Inside that 32,000-square-foot building, a staff of 150 well-trained media and technology geeks set about the task of obsessively cataloging every piece of music, every movie and every video game ever produced. It seems like a Sisyphean task, but after 15 years, the company has amassed an amount of data that's difficult to describe. Consider the following:
  Deep within the bowels of AMG headquarters is a locked-down room that would make any record geek's knees go weak. Inside that room is the AMG archive. It's 7,000 square feet of cabinets, with boxes stacked on top of cabinets. A whiteboard keeps a running tally: as of Jan. 12, the archive was home to 461,550 albums (multi-disc sets count as one album), 75,259 DVDs and 3,477 games.
  ...
  And those are just the physical items AMG owns. The growing database at the moment holds information on more than 8.5 million songs and 900,000 individual albums. If an individual song clocks in at three minutes, it would take 25.5 million minutes to listen to all of those songs — and that computation ignores longer tunes like "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" and the works of Fela Kuti.
  The company compiles formal data like artist names and titles as well as descriptive content about genre and style. It adds bylined reviews, biographies and ratings, as well as data about similar products and influences.
  It's a project born of obsession — a wacky idea from the mind of estranged founder Michael Erlewine. And now, this compulsive cataloging of content is paying off for AMG. What at one time must have seemed to many as pointless fetishism is becoming increasingly useful, given the increasing array of digital doodads consumers can use to store and play content.
  This is a 4,000-word profile of the company.
3. Anderson, Scott (2005-05-31). "Internet music sales ring up a cheerful tune for AMG". The Ann Arbor News. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The recent boost in music bought - versus pirated - over the Internet has given a lift to Pittsfield Township-based All Media Guide, which is now under new ownership - its own.
  AMG has built up a long list of customers, such as retailers Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble Inc., which purchase its content, including voluminous information on thousands of artists, record reviews and other data. Its music division is called All Music Guide, but the company also operates All Movie Guide and All Game Guide, which review and provide information about current and past movies and video games.
  AMG has seen rapid growth recently and this year began supplying its data to Apple Computer's iTunes Music store and the newly minted Napster, which was reborn from an embattled peer-to-peer sharing system to a for-fee music service with the blessing of the recording industry.
4. Lockwood, Rod (2007-11-11). "Michigan company is the last word for music fans and professionals". The Blade. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  From the outside, the All Media Guide building on the outskirts of Ann Arbor is the antithesis of the funky, incense-and-clutter vibe of a record store. It screams "business park," the kind of concrete, asphalt, and brick background where commerce takes place with efficient anonymity.
  ...
  Pop a CD into a computer that's hooked up to the Internet and chances are that the album information that comes up on your computer - everything from song titles to album art and reviews - comes from Allmusic.com, which is AMG's signature product. Windows Media Player, Rhapsody, and RealPlayer all use their data base, which contains millions of songs.
  The massive collection of information, essentially an online encyclopedia, has become a go-to site for everyone from corporate giants like Microsoft's Windows to classical music disc jockeys preparing their shows. With its consumer-oriented reviews, detailed discographies, and biographies it's also a bottomless resource of information and trivia for any kind of music fan, whether it's a Beatles completist or someone trying to find out which Outkast disc they should buy their niece.
  ...
  AMG in its current form - with its 150 employees, and massive database of music, movies, and games - is a marriage of cutting-edge technology and old-school curating and cataloging work. Born in the early '90s at the dawn of the compact disc age, the company was formed in a house in Big Rapids, Mich., by a bunch of guys who shared one thing in common: a passion for music.
  The founder was Michael Erlewine, who played in bands throughout Michigan - including one that featured Iggy Pop - and had an intense interest in astrology and music.
  ...
  Macrovision Corp. out of Santa Clara, Calif., announced last week that it plans to purchase All Media Guide for $82 million in an effort to utilize the Ann Arbor company's massive data base in the firm's growing technology business.
5. Traiman, Steve (1998-10-31). "Alliance Readies Online Outlet For Its Indies". Billboard. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  AMG's All-Music Guide won leading search engine Yahoo's award this year for best music reference site on the Web.
  ...
  AMG, the nucleus of the Store 24 concept, was founded by Michael Erlewine, a musician/computer programmer who once traveled with Bob Dylan, and Vladimir Bogdanov, a database expert. They were soon joined by data engineer Chris Woodstra, who is now editor in chief of AMG.
  In addition to the All-Music Guide, the AMG consumer directories include the All-Movie Guide and the All-Game Guide, which will be available to any AEC retailer in the future, and the soon-to-be-launched All-Book Guide.
  Here is a second article from the same issue of Billboard:
  - Christman, Ed (1998-10-31). "Alliance, Out of Chapter 11, to Focus on One-Stop Business". Billboard. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
    The article notes:
    
    An integral component of AEC's online plans is All Media Guide (AMG), a database company based in Big Rapids, Mich., formerly known as Matrix, which will be moved to Ann Arbor, Mich. That company's products include the All-Music Guide, the All-Movie Guide, the soon-to-be-marketed All Games Guide, and the soon-to-be launched All-Book Guide. The All-Music Guide, which was recently named the best music reference guide on the Internet by Yahoo!, serves as the heart of the Store 24 program, and Weisman expects it to play a growing role as the Internet becomes an important selling tool.
6. Nosowitz, Dan (2015-01-30). "The Story of AllMusic, Which Predates the World Wide Web". Vice. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  And AllMusic, formerly known as All Music Guide or AMG, seeks to do the same for music.
  Every band, every artist, in every genre, gets a biography. Every album, single, EP, and live album that gets a release, no matter how obscure, is catalogued, and AllMusic tries its damndest to review them all, too. AllMusic has quietly become the kind of resource that's so intrinsic to the internet that it's hard to imagine the internet without it.
  That's partly that's because the internet has never really existed without it. AllMusic predates the World Wide Web, having been founded in 1991 in Big Rapids, Michigan by one exceedingly interesting guy: Michael Erlewine.
  ...
  Erlewine founded All Music Guide in 1990, releasing the first All Music Guide book, at a whopping 1,200 pages in 1991, along with a CD-ROM. But the real revolution of All Music Guide was to create a database, on computers, that could be accessed by anyone, that included literally every recording in history. It was an insane project, one that may not even technically be possible, but Erlewine and his team of freelance writers attempted to do just that. The first version was available on Gopher pages, Gopher being kind of a precursor to the World Wide Web, basically a file system. It was moved to the World Wide Web as soon as it became clear that that was the future.
  ...
  Today it is a backbone of the artistic internet. Every music critic and, I'd say, almost every music fan visits AllMusic regularly. Erlewine is no longer directly involved with AllMusic, the company having been sold a few times since the early 2000s.
  In 2013, Rovi spun off AllMusic and its sister sites, including All Movie Guide, which are now owned by All Media Network. The first president of All Media Network was a former Rovi employee, and Rovi continues to license AllMusic's data to various sites and services. As a matter of fact, Rovi continues to maintain the database, and the various reviewers, like Erlewine's nephew, are employed by Rovi. All Media Network handles the daily editorial content, like interviews, blog posts, and also handles the design of the site.
7. Weisbard, Eric (1999-02-23). "Conjunction Junction". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  AMG stands for All-Media Guide, too, which includes an All-Movie Guide a year behind the music wing in scope, a fairly new games division, and plans for books and other collectibles. The funding comes from Alliance Entertainment, Inc., a music distributor Erlewine sold out to a couple of years back. But AMG is already a proven money earner. It’s about “relating value.” Yes, most people consume the same records and books. More and more, though, we demand that the rest be available as well— so some grunt has to do the inputting that lets you link everything to everything else. It’s easier to sell records than keep track of them; music chains and online retail sites are compelled to purchase from AMG some mix of formal data, ratings, reviews, descriptive categories, biographies, song credits, album-performer associations, and general reference, available in monthly and weekly updates. “Unlike some Internet companies that are mostly talk and no profit,” Erlewine declares, “our assets are solid. Things that we’ve built, like the databases, are here to stay.”
8. Pritchard, Michael (1999-04-26). "Web Sighting / All Media Guide Has Music, Movies, Video Games Covered". The Press of Atlantic City. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  When surfing the Web, sometimes you just have to sit back and admire a site that's well organized and jammed full of information.
  Such a site is the All Media Guide, which covers music, movies and video games. For some reason, you have to start at www.allmusic.com since there's no address for the guide's main page. It's a good place to start. The site has a comprehensive list of essays and music reviews by more than 200 music reviewers from magazines like Rolling Stone and Billboard. The information is broken down by genre and style of music and you can find almost any album or artist you're interested in.
9. Bloom, David (1999-06-12). "Digital L.A. - 'Connections' Host Soft-Wires Book of Vast Knowledge". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The All-Music Guide has long been one of the best resources (both online and in a series of terrific books) for learning more about musicians of all kinds and the music they've created.
  The All-Game Guide is similar in its ambitious reach, with information broken down by a dozen kinds of game genres and nearly 50 platforms, stretching all the way back to the very earliest, now long-dead consoles (Pong, anyone?). You can search by company (Electronic Arts, unsurprisingly, generates a massive list), by character and much more.
  The site also has reviews, codes and cheats, difficulty ratings and more for specific games. Its creators still have some substantial work to do because many games lack much or any information, and areas like a guide to notable video-gaming leaders haven't yet been implemented.
  But the folks behind the All-Music Guide (the general home page has been cannily renamed the All-Media Guide to include sister sites for movies and classical music) built their prodigious database of information by relying on the qualitative input of thousands of fans.
  As with the All-Music Guide, a player will be able to provide reviews and other information that will help shape how the game is rated, and give other players a sense of its gameplay.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow All Media Network to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about promotion: The article is largely neutral. It is not "verging on G11" and it does not violate WP:NOTYELLOW or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is standard for parent companies like All Media Network to discuss its subsidiaries. That does not make the article violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
Cunard (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cunard's sources. I'm okay with redirecting some of the offshoots like Allgame, but not the main parent company. Sergecross73 msg me 23:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs:
1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllMovie
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllGame
Cunard (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. Accusations of WP:NOTYELLOW, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMO, WP:G11 are not supported by the article. Claiming "nothing significant about it" for an article with thousands of incoming links is disingenuous. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Michael Erlewine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard; obviously notable even if the article is incomplete. AllMusic is linked to or mentioned in more than a hundred thousand Wikipedia articles, and AllMovie is linked to in more than 11,000. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a source review. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Cmar[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor of a small township. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A population of 10K is not large enough to hand a mayor an automatic presumption of notability just because she exists. An article could still become acceptable if she could be sourced over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our notability criteria for local officeholders, but one piece of media coverage (all that's been shown here) isn't enough to get over that bar. I also suspect a potential conflict of interest here, as the article was created by "Jkeyc" (J for Janice and C for Cmar?) and has been subsequently edited by "CmarLover123". Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Ahmad[edit]

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

Fails to provide WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. couldn't find anything in RS which can demonstrate the notability of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fahim Burney[edit]

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

Fails to provide WP:RS so fail to verify as per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is often quoted in news stories but mostly are namechecked and i couldn't find a single RS which demonstrate the notability of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Nazish[edit]

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

Self-promotion fails to provide WP:RS. Too many links to blogs and profile as journalist but fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:AUTHOR. No source to support her claim of winning a award. Greenbörg (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look like an autobio by a SPA. she is a journalist but not notable enough to warrant an entry yet. found not much about her in RS except this interview [40]. --Saqib (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Tajammul[edit]

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

Self-promotion. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:RS to verify per WP:V. Greenbörg (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing on the subject in RS. --Saqib (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Mehmood (actor)[edit]

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

Self-promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No WP:RS to verify as per WP:V. Greenbörg (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing on the subject in RS. don't be mistaken there are many Pakistani people named Rashid Mehmood --Saqib (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 section on the Pensionado Act to Education in the Philippines during the American rule. Malinaccier (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino Americans in higher education[edit]

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

Reads like WP:NOTESSAY Gbawden (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as Rise of higher education in Phillipines or similar. It should be possible to add paragraphs between the Pensionado Act and the initiative under Marcos and as to what has happened since. If we have another article on the subject, I would support merge/redirect. The final paragraph on Filipino academics in US should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, drafify, or stubiffy. The article as written reads like a mix of WP:ESSAY and WP:OR. It's possible that a good article could be written on this topic (possibly with a different title, as suggested above), but this isn't it. So, either delete with no prejudice to recreate a better version, or WP:TNT. Somewhat more specifically, I'd be more inclined to let this stay if we had in-line references for statements such as the main goal for the Spaniards were to spread Christianity in the Philippines, and removing obvious WP:OR/WP:POV such as If lucky, Filipinas were limited to learn some primary education. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge to Education in the Philippines during the American rule. The section "The Pensionado Act" has information that could be combined but the rest is a WP:ESSAY. No independent notability for the concept is sustained by the sources used. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oliver Goldsmith (company). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Goldsmith[edit]

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

No indication that subject meets WP:GNG and has had sustaining coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE source turned up promotional coverage, but nothing else significant. Smartyllama (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or~~ Redirect to Oliver Goldsmith (company). Her grandfather, Oliver Goldsmith and his family company are VERY notable eyewear designers and pioneers of 20th-century glasses (they effectively turned glasses from functional necessaries into valid fashion accessories), and ought to have an article - maybe I need to do one. His granddaughter does not inherit his notability, and isn't on the same level yet. I would suggest a basic mention on an Oliver Goldsmith biographical article in the "family and legacy" section (as it is part of the Goldsmith family dynamic) but I don't believe she is valid to have her own article at this point. Mabalu (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oliver Goldsmith (company) has been created, with the Claire Goldsmith namecheck which I feel is sufficent. Mabalu (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had a look at the sources in the current article. While Claire isn't quite independently notable enough yet, she is much more significant than I thought, particularly in her role as reviver of the Oliver Goldsmith brand. I would now firmly say that a redirect is very appropriate. Mabalu (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oliver Goldsmith (company). Only seeing one good reference for notability here (Guardian). one of the others probably should be deleted, and the writer of the other one is clearly connected to the artist as a personal friend. Should probably merge the Guardian ref into Oliver Goldsmith (company) with a sentence or short paragraph about here there. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 20:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baazaar[edit]

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

Contested PROD (removed with no rationale). There is only minimal coverage of this upcoming film, which the one source provided indicates isn't meant to be released until the end of the year, making this clearly TOOSOON for an article. While the cast members listed are notable, notability isn't inherited. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be worth mentioning that there's certainly no prejudice towards the recreation of this article if and when the production is further along and/or the coverage justifies it. As the facts on the ground change, an article subject can always become notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: with filming confirmed and production having suitable coverage, WP:NFF is met and the film topic is proven notable, thank you.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion you've expressed elsewhere, yes. This comment was written earlier in the piece, and responded to what appeared to be a concern at that time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but IF their inclusion brings press coverage, then notability is brought forward too. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's coverage, and that coverage satisfies either NFILM or GNG, then it doesn't matter what prompted the coverage. No disagreement there. My point is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and the article doesn't get a free pass simply because a phalanx of performers with notability are in it. The film needs to be notable itself, no? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

WP:INDAFD: Baazaar Baazaar

KEEP per filming being confirmed in Bollywood Hungama and the production IS being spoken of directly and in some detail in such as Times of India (1), Times of India (2), Deccan Chronicle, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Bollywood Hungama, First Post (1), First Post (2), Daily News & Analysis (1), Daily News & Analysis (2), Bolyspice, NDTV, and many more. This needs to be expanded and far better sourced to more obviously show it meeting applicable criteria and WP:NFF. BigHaz..? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguably meets WP:CREATIVE, and with plenty of local coverage in reliable sources and a bit of wider coverage. Consensus of editors is borderline to keep, so this is a pretty easy keep close. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Spinks[edit]

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

Local artist. Her notability does not extend beyond Ventura County and Caliornia Art Club. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just found that California Art Club's award may actually grant passing WP:CREATIVE, taking into account the scale of organisation. But I am still on the fence about it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still on the fence too, although she has coverage in American Artist Drawing Magazine, an article in NY-based Epoch Times (is that a WP:RS?), and lots of local press, so she's got some coverage outside southern California as well as locally. The article as originally created was very promotional. Note that the NY Times article cited (twice!) is only a brief mention and doesn't contribute to notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, there is a good amount of coverage of her art, especially in the Malibu Times. Her work is possibly more notable than her but if that's the case then the artist goes along with it as well. Karl Twist (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She seems notable. I updated the WikiProject assessments to get more consensus, TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And I hope Cunard will rewrite the article to incorporate the material that he located DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Core77[edit]

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

Non-significant Blog. Coverage are nothing notable. Nothing to write except 1 paragraph. purpose is promotional and nothing else. Helps building links afterall we are blog! Wikipedia is used as corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blogs are not reliable sources, even for themselves. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I was just about to vote delete based on the thin article and poor outdated sourcing, but on a hunch went to their site. Seems very slick to call just a blog. Did a little more digging and found more coverage, and improved the article. Apparently this is a very notable digital publication in the design world, and many well known design schools are heavily involved in submitting work for Core77's Design Awards program - so it must be prestigious. I don't want to canvas and taint the already fragile AfD process, but I think others who focus on editing design articles could speak better to this site's notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's well-known then give the sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I added some coverage I found - it's there now. I think that since we're not (or at least I'm not) in the design industry, it might be useful to let editors who are in the design field chime in as well. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gomez Palacio, Bryony; Vit, Armin (2012) [2009]. Graphic Design, Referenced: A Visual Guide to the Language, Applications, and History of Graphic Design. Beverly, Massachusetts: Rockport Publishers. p. 114. ISBN 1592537421. Retrieved 2017-07-13.
  The book notes:
  In 1995, as students in the Industrial Design graduate program at Pratt Institute, Stuart Constantine and Eric Ludlum presented Core77 as their thesis: embracing the nascent medium of websites and interface design to consolidate information and resources about their future profession. From the outset, Core77 attracted a wide and loyal following that avidly contributed articles, resources, job openings, and more, and fueled its growth to become a de facto destination for industrial designers. Allan Chochinov joined in 2000 as a partner and has overseen the consistent development of Core77's editorial voice and community, including a popular blog, feature articles, special publications, and offline events. Found in its accompanying forums is the 1 Hour Design Challenge, where readers are invited to come up with concepts and sketches for things like cycling shoes or bettering the rainshower experience. Despite a focus on industrial designs, much of its content is relevant to any creative endeavor.
2. Abrahamson, Shaun; Ryder, Peter; Unterberg, Bastian (2013). Crowdstorm: The Future of Innovation, Ideas, and Problem Solving. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 1118570383. Retrieved 2017-07-13.
  The book notes:
  Media partners have already aggregated communities of interest—groups of people who are thinking and talking about specific issues. For example, Core77 is a resource for the design community that covers industry-related news, such as award-winning designs and emerging thinking. They regularly discuss design challenges and introduce their community to contests. And they are a resource for designers in other ways, such as hosting their portfolios and connecting them with new job opportunities.
  But an organization like Core77 can do more than directly support recruiting. Their brand is well respected; therefore, an opportunity to have one's work featured in their selective news coverage is highly desirable. In this way, Core77 lends a hand in making good on the promise of attention. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they will promote the best designs from crowdstorming challenges; these selections represent the "content" that their community wants to see, while giving the winning designers the visibility and attention they desire.
  Core77 is just one specialty media partner. Nowadays, specialty communities cover everything from sustainable energy and resource management to data visualization. Having these media partners as part of a crowdstorming coalition can be essential to attracting the right participants.
3. Heller, Steven; Womack, David (2008). Becoming a Digital Designer: A Guide to Careers in Web, Video, Broadcast, Game and Animation Design. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 237. ISBN 111803421X. Retrieved 2017-07-13.
  The book notes:
  The folks behind Core77 were industrial design students who decided that they needed an online forum where like minds could gather, debate, and share resources. They started Core77 in 1995 right out of school and have succeeded in building one of the leading design Web sites from the ground up. They had no funding beyond a small grant from the university, but they did have enthusiasm. Over time, what at first seemed like an obstacle—the fact that they didn't have the backing of an organization or company—has turned out to be a benefit. They've been able to develop a unique and independent voice while still managing to make a living.
4. Skinner, Marjorie (2010-08-12). "Sold Out: Hand-Eye Supply". The Portland Mercury. Archived from the original on 2017-07-13. Retrieved 2017-07-13.
  The article notes:
  A new specialty boutique has joined Portland's ranks, but instead of curating lines of hard-to-find European scarves and toiletries, this venture focuses on the tools we need for making things. Founded by Core77, the longstanding online resource for industrial designers, Hand-Eye Supply offers what co-founder Eric Ludlum (with partners Stuart Constantine and Allan Chochinov) describes as an almost retro selection of supplies for making things with your hands rather than on a computer—everything from wrenches to pushpins to eye protection to sketchpads are available, although perhaps the most impressive category of their merchandise is the workwear department.
  ...
  The website was originally started in 1995 as a joint thesis for the Pratt Institute, with Constantine coming onboard around 2000, but the cheaper rents and fact that Ludlum says Portland "is a really good place to make things" won out. It's also no small coincidence that Ludlum's wife was pregnant when they made their permanent move last year.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Core77 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard, plus the work done on the article since opening the AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to coverage of sources found by Cunard. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bahria Town. czar 20:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cine Gold[edit]

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

Shows no notability. Will be better to redirect to Bahria Town. Greenbörg (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, no notability is shown. A g-search does not turn up anything verifiable. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - g-search shows only some sources with trivial mentions. - TheMagnificentist 11:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 12:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bahria Town per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 15:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, redirect, or both?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with redirect. Greenbörg (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 12:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Imin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Coverage in independent reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. It's also worth noting a possible Conflict of Interest, as before I removed some language from the article quite a bit was written in the first person (see here for example [41]). The article has the additional problem of some references being in Uyghur, and I'm not sure that a single currently active Wikipedian with knowledge of WP:RS reads Uyghur. Certainly I've been unable to find one so far. Alephb (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical. They would post an article just about anyone who has got arrested in China. Does not pass WP:GNG. STSC (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Intro states that he is "an activist, reformist, public scholar, and journalist", yet the main body does not give any sourced examples to support these four potentially notable occupations. As it fails to provide examples of notable activity, it thereby fails WP:BIO. Loopy30 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Macklin, Jenny (July 12, 2016). "Statement on resignation of PWDA's Craig Wallace". Parliament of Australia.

[1]