Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 July	3 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. A merger can be discussed elsewhere, separately from this AFD. There were no convincing policy-based arguments for deleting this article completely without preserving at least some of the content in another form (WP:PRESERVE). So Why 12:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mamie Lincoln Isham[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. The only reason she has a page is that she's Abraham Lincoln's granddaughter. There's literally nothing else of note here, and notability isn't inherited. That's Wikipedia 101. Kbabej (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lincoln's family is written about in depth in numerous sources, such as Neely, Mark E., and Harold Holzer. The Lincoln Family Album. Doubleday, 1990. and Lachman, Charles. The Last Lincolns: The Rise and Fall of a Great American Family. Sterling Publishing Company, 2008. The index of the later is visible to me on google books, here, and shows she is discussed on 23 pages. Neither of these are overly academic, but seem ok. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a reasonably sourced article on a historical figure. Also per sources presented above. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a classic case of notability not being inherited. I have no issue on verification, but she was completely NN. This also applies to the children of Tony Blair, the father of Theresa May, and the brother of Jimmy Carter. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is not conferred, when otherwise lacking, based on or by virtue of being related to a notable individual. Quis separabit? 03:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There just doesn't seem to be much in the way of noteworthiness here. Other than her famous grandfather she doesn't appear to have any notability in her own right. Cthomas3 (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article on Descendants of Abraham Lincoln, along with other nominated family members (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Wallace Lincoln). bd2412 T 22:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that deletion arguments above ignore WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Lincoln descendants where a topic of intense public interest in the 20th century, widely covered in books and media. they do not lose notability merely because some editors find them uninteresting. Moreover, what WP:NOTINHERITED actually says is: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." Available sourcing on Isham certainly passes GNG. Beware presentism! She was a national figure in my great-granddpapa's day. And those old sources continue to support notability, as do, of course, recent articles and books like those cited above by [[User:Smmurphy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the WP:SIG that continued not only during her lifetime, but, especially, after her death, like this [1] 2017 detailed revisiting of her life in the Journal-Courier, but especially in books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the obit that ran in the NYTimes: Mrs Isham Dies; Was Lincoln's Kin; Granddaughter of President a Daughter of Robert Todd Lincoln, Ex-War Secretary OWNED FAMOUS PORTRAIT Emancipator's Likeness Now to Hang in White House if a Position Suitable Is Found, New York Times, 22 November 1938 [2]. Lengthy and detailed. As always, obits in major national newspapers are taken to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of her death, Isham was the owner of the Healy Portrait of Lincoln, which had been left to her by her mother. It now in teh White House collection.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that AFDs on Lincoln descendants come up form time to time, I think the arguments for Keeping were particularly well stated at last summer's discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 10 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) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Indian reserved seats[edit]

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

Non-notable "thing"— I don't even know how to categorize this. Not notable. KDS4444 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why this has been nominated for an AfD. It's an under-construction list of members of parliament nominated from the Anglo-Indian community. These seats are essentially equivalent to a constituency of India's lower house. --RaviC (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't all of this going in the article on the Lok Sabha? It seems it belongs there if it belongs anywhere. An article under the title "Anglo-Indian reserved seats" sounds like it could be a bus— the title gives no context, and the concept, to the extent that it is real, belongs within some other article which WILL have a suitable context. Even a redirect from here seems wrong— the article's content could perhaps be merged into the one on the Lok Sabha, but this namespace needs to be deleted as nonsensical. KDS4444 (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of members - it's far too long to be in the Lok Sabha article. If you think the name is misleading, it could be renamed to List of Nominated Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha. --RaviC (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is an obviously notable topic without question. As noted above this is equivalent to a constituency of the Lok Sabha. The nominator has failed to advance any actual argument for deletion. Perhaps take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhiloda (Vidhan Sabha constituency). AusLondonder (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per AusLondonder and Jupitus Smart. --Elton-Rodrigues 19:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
Keep per above, but I agree that a more descriptive title is in order.PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per above; the page title should reference Lok Sabha somehow. It's a bizarre parliament constituency, but it verifiably is one, and all the other constituencies have pages. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot word it better than User:AusLondonder. Pratyush (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existence=notability! KDS4444 (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe merging into Reserved political positions in India#Anglo-Indian_seats would be better. It looks like the standalone doesn't go into much more depth except to list out the people who've held these seats. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Straze is right on, maybe shifting the title to indicate its connection to the Lok Sabha. Otherwise, I am fine with this, parliamentary constituencies are notable. South Nashua (talk) 19:52, 9 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 keep: WP:SKCRIT criteria #6, article is on the main page, (non-admin closure).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Painter[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Only notable outside of the Bush cabinet for suing Trump. KMF (talk) 21:50, 2 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 as snow consensus, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence D. Smith[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:PROF. Absent more convincing evidence, I couldn't establish that the subject passes any notability criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's certainly more difficult because of the common name, but I think he's fairly highly cited. It looks like B.F. Skinner and behaviorism in American culture is held in >800 libraries and Behaviorism and Logical Positivism has >400 GS citations. I see three more publications with >100 citations that look like they are his (one on Skinner and two on graphs and tables). Behaviorism and Logical Positivism was also reviewed in Isis by Ernest Hilgard, but I can't access the full text. There are also book reviews like this one, but I don't know how significant this journal is. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. I added three book reviews, so now at least the article has reliable independent sourcing for some of Smith's works. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviews of one of his books hardly makes the subject notable under PROF. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I didn't say it did. It's three reviews of two books, not two of one, but it still wouldn't make the subject notable under PROF, and it's probably not enough even under WP:AUTHOR. What makes the subject notable under PROF is the high number of citations to his work. But in order to say something about that work here, we also need a sufficient depth of reliable sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just added a fourth review, by B. F. Skinner, one of the subjects of the book, who calls his book "a work of extraordinary scholarship". —David Eppstein (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four publications with over 100 cites each on GS satisfies WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - as per above editors, citation count satisfies WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In agreement with the above editors. Obviously I hold this opinion as the original author of this article. ;) Jcbutler (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like a snow keep here. I do not understand why the nominator proposed deletion of this BLP when he created and edited a BLP about a person of less achievement and notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 8 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, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifebooker[edit]

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

blatant promotion Light2021 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not achieve notability. Fails WP:CORP for lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Coverage is mostly from less than reliable sources such as couponcodeslady.com, or not independent such as the interview with Lauren Tesar in "Google's Big Fat Search Overhaul: Just Doing What Google Does". Of the "The 100 Most Valuable Startups In The World, Revamped And Revised!" Lifebooker was #113. Basically just blurbs. In passing, Lifebooker was one of the businesses targeted by UnsubscribeDeals.com for their relentless daily emails and convoluted unsubscribe process. --Bejnar (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorial, with sections "Services for Users" and "Services for Businesses". Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion; this content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 9 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. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BaubleBar[edit]

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

Routine coverage. Press release. Typical startup with blatant promotions. Light2021 (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability is made in the lead. Fails WP:CORP for lack of in-depth coverage. Mostly rehash of news releases, blurbs, and things like the interviews in "Entrepreneurs Are Everywhere Show, No. 5" and "10 Minutes With… BaubleBar". --Bejnar (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company covered in-depth on this page with varied, diverse source material. PsychoMaple (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diverse source material alright, but not independent (interviews, press releases) and not reliable. --Bejnar (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Sections include: "History: Early days" (!); "Funding"; "Products and services"; "Partnerships", etc. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a company web site or a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 9 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, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MeWe[edit]

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

Blatant promotion. Press release. non-notable startup. nothing significant about it. Light2021 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches are made more awkward by unrelated similarly-named companies, but I am not seeing better than start-up propositional coverage for this social network, including a passing mention among "Startups Vying for Hype at SXSW" in 2016 ([3] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), for example. Nor does Alexa just past 50,000th in the USA indicate better for attained notability. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a promotional piece, created in 2013 by a single purpose account. Fails WP:CORP for lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Not ranked in any published list of "social media". Also delete the redirect at Sgrouples, its earlier name. --Bejnar (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability author puts fourth non applicable companies and past endeavors of owners as a motivation for notability. Clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NWEB. HDavis2017 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 8 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, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason B. Cope[edit]

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

SPA-created article, highly promotional; sources are entirely written by the subject, or primary stuff like association directories – nothing about the subject at all that isn't self-published. Googles shows nothing but the usual advertising, LinkedIn, whatever. E Eng 20:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nomination sums it up. Promotional article where the sourcing does not pass the GNG because it is either promotional, primary, or self-authored. The clear promotional nature of the article also fails WP:NOTSPAM, making this article fail both points of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1500 cites on GS not enough for a highly cited field (one of the entries is bogus). Xxanthippe (talk) 10:25, 4 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 07:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hubcap (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable: fancruft & trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 9 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 List of Autobots. Content can be editorially merged from the history insofar as there's consensus for it. Sandstein 07:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Springer (Transformers)[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Autobots. Notable within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots; not independently notable and there's nothing to merge. Sources are in-universe or otherwise not independent of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 8 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 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Equatorial Guinean records in swimming[edit]

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

List of mostly empty tables. Whatever relevant information exists can easily be mentioned in the subject's articles. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG. T v x1 19:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOT a repository of random information Rrachet (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These national record articles are notable, as evidenced by the fact that virtually every other country has an article similar. (See template at bottom of page). If nom thinks these articles should not exist, he should establish consensus on the relevant project pages, not sneakily pick them off one by one. Smartyllama (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. I strongly contest that every country in the world's records are notable. Saying that e.g. US national records carry the same weight as Equatoguinean records is simply ridiculous. This country doesn't even have records in a handful of the events listed in this article. The tables are nearly empty. This not even remotely an encyclopedic entry.T v x1 17:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN (and its list-specific formulation of WP:GNG). Unless significant prose coverage (not just statistics) in reliable sources are found, it's not even presumed notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIINATE. — fortunavelut luna 10:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT a heap of random info. DrStrauss talk 12:05, 10 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subish Sudhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACTOR with not enough significant roles and no awards. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he got significant role you can undestand if you watch those films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.245.105.109 (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you people not encouraging new writers by removing the articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokulpp88 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gokulpp88: I would encourage new writers to improve existing articles using reliable sources. I would also encourage them to read the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability and the information at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 19:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that the actor has played a major role in any of the film listed in the article and there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant roles, no significant coverage. Fails WP:BLPNOTE, fails WP:NACTOR. Article said that he received his breakthrough role in Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi, yet he barely made the cast list. --Bejnar (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ACTOR. Quis separabit? 03:40, 8 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 Angerme. So Why 12:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maho Aikawa[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. This article leans too heavily on self-published stuff. It also reads like a fan page, which doesn't help. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her musical group Angerme, for lack of independent notability. --Bejnar (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable & just a fan page full of trivia; no need to preserve the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 8 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 for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KJEL[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BCAST Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BROADCAST easily; on-air and broadcasting with a full schedule of programming. Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: How do you figure? It requires "either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming" and I'm not seeing that here. That the station exists and broadcasts isn't enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Established broadcast history" is met by the fact that the station has been on the air since 1973 (as opposed to being a placeholder license that the company holds for a station that isn't actually transmitting), and "unique programming" (which means "unique" in the sense of "originating from the station's own studios", not in the sense of "radically innovative and creatively unprecedented") is fully shown here as well. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There traditionally has been a presumed notability for most broadcast stations — as long as it is verifiably backed up by reliable sources. At the time of nomination, this article actually did, for certain, fail BCAST on that count — the only reference in the article at the time related to its affiliation with the St. Louis Cardinals Radio Network, and I don't think that's enough to get over the "needs sources" hump. (Whether or not we've been too lenient in general on the large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming conditions over the years may well be another matter altogether.) However, I've expanded the article a bit so that there's more of a history of the station and also considerable more sourcing (and I also pruned some stuff about the station's prior owners that weren't necessarily relevant to KJEL itself); I can't guarantee that it will definitively save the article (i.e., if it sufficiently establishes any notability KJEL might have), but it's reasonably safe to say that no matter what past outcomes for broadcast station AfDs have suggested about broadcast station notability in general, sufficient sourcing is a must if an article is to survive an AfD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wcquidditch's improvements. Per WP:NMEDIA, a radio station is considered notable if it meets four conditions: (a) it has an FCC license, (b) it is actually in operation ("established broadcast history") and not just a construction permit that exists only on paper, (c) it actually originates at least some of its own standalone programming ("unique programming") rather than operating solely as a translator of another radio station, and (d) those three facts are reliably sourced. I'll grant that the article was weak and unreferenced at the time of nomination, but Wcquidditch has gotten it past all four conditions. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Per NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:24 on July 9, 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms cities. Content can be merged from the history insofar as consensus allows. Sandstein 08:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravens Bluff[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities. BOZ (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, given that the list exists. We have Gateway to Ravens Bluff, The Living City, Inside Ravens Bluff, The Living City and The City of Ravens; links to these articles could be added to the target list, if they're not there already. That said, this may indicate that there are good sources out there; the one third-party source in the article appears to have been affected by linkrot. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms cities; there's nothing to merge as the article does not cite independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 8 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) 05:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are "In-universe" publications "sources" in the encyclopedia sense of the word? For example, my birth certificate is a primary source. It does not help with establishing my notability, but it contains objective facts about me. I'd like for it to say that I was born on Mars in 2317, but it doesn't :-). The game accessories are not independent of the topic, and pretty much say whatever the in-universe line is. Could you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 10 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 List of Forgotten Realms cities. Content can be merged from the history insofar as consensus allows. Sandstein 07:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evereska[edit]

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

This currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities. BOZ (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms cities. Not notable & there's nothing to merge as the article does cite any sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the "Merge" voters -- what do you propose to merge to the target article? The article lists no sources at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 10 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 List of Forgotten Realms cities. Content can be merged from the history insofar as consensus allows. Sandstein 07:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athkatla[edit]

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

This currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities. BOZ (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect name only to List of Forgotten Realms cities. Not notable & there's nothing to merge as the article does not cite independent sources. The article content is unsourced original research and fancruft. One citation offered is to an in-universe publication (a game set). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 8 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) 05:27, 10 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 Donald Trump on social media#CNN wrestling video. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump–CNN beating video[edit]

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

WP:WHATNOT - We can't have an article for every single tweet Donald Trump published. Also note a section is already at Donald Trump on social media#CNN wrestling video. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7 web content. The article does not indicate why the video is notable. Not everything Trump does is worthy of an article in our encyclopedia. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump on social media#CNN wrestling video as a plausbile search term. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some mention somewhere is appropriate but not as a standalone article. --Lockley (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some references like "covfefe" are appropriate for redirection to Donald Trump on social media, but this is not one of them Ziphit (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per KGirlTrucker81. If there's a section on an article with content for this search term, we should redirect readers there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect, for now. If this turns into something later, it might become notable (eg., it's taken as evidence of mental instability - and no, I'm not trying to be political about this). If not, then delete.98.22.39.237 (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 3 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) 01:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy incubate during AfD and then Delete "Beating"? Yes, there are sources that use that word, but "beating" is vague and charged, and Wikipedia should not be feeding into the argument for who is inciting violence. What will this event be called in ten years? This is too soon. The coverage at Donald Trump on social media#CNN wrestling video is sufficient for now. Unscintillating (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a social media trends site. We cannot create entire new articles everytime Donald Trump does, thinks, says or tweets something moronic. AusLondonder (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. if it's discussed elsewhere, which it is, this should be redirected there. But it's not worthy of its own article, as others have discussed. Smartyllama (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand This news story is definitely big and controversial enough to keep and expand with additional information including reactions from various media/political figures and the press. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge with Donald Trump on social media - per above. Jdcomix (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The information is already presented in Donald Trump on social media#CNN wrestling video, per the above rationale. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The media making a whole big thing out of this than it should, should be a subsection on Donald Trump on social media.F2Milk (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump on social media. Ceosad (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Not worthy of an article on its own. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Trump tweets so many stupid and inmature things, not every one needs its own wikipedia article.--ANDREWs13 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump on social media: On its own, its pretty terrible, but I don't see it as having the notability to carry a separate article. The Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski conflict received more coverage, but it didn't get its own article. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as news. And for anyone who thinks a title with an en dash is a plausible redirect... you've spent entirely too much time memorizing the manual of style. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NotNews, and already in existing article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable on its own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The original WWE "beating" was faked, as is all of the wrestling viewers see in pro-wrestling. The CNN version was crude, uncivil, and humorous to Trump-fans – but not notable enough for a WP article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A tiny pimple on the bum of the Trump presidency. WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Donald Trump on social media seems appropriate. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donald Trump on social media, that's the right place for this kind of thing. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Cofevefevfe itt: simple pimple not-news, not inclusion-worthy thingy. Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo (talk) 17:41, 9 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 09:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomcharts[edit]

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

Unclear if notability requirements are met; reads like an advertisemenet Ziphit (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nom. --Lockley (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 3 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. Probably G12 (really needs some better investigation to discover if we took from the other sources, or if they took from us). In any case, consensus is clearly to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Royal Fashion[edit]

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

This article is a case of WP:NOTESSAY even though it is well written Gbawden (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Puzzled by this. It's well-sourced and cogent, objective in a way that many essays are not, and I can't help thinking the material belongs in wikipedia somewhere. Creation of an SPA. The lead is not worth much. However at least some of the material seems cribbed from other sources, so it looks like we may have copyvio problems. Ah, that's why it's well-written -- those words are stolen. I've tagged accordingly. --Lockley (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G12. I see no use in trying to clean this up. --Lockley (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Having a look at Google Books, there seems to be a few books specifically on the topic, and plenty of articles as cited. A lot of interest in the Royals, and they do have specific norms and culture with what they wear. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: considering the G12 material and the essay-like tone, it's a delete from me. DrStrauss talk 12:06, 10 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. I've discounted a few SPA keeps that are fairly insulting as well Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Ali Kureshi[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG. cited sources are not RS Saqib (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is poorly written as well. How did this article make it out of AfC? I see where it was prodded and the creator of this BLP removed it on the 7th day. The last name in the creator's user name Waleedkureshe is very close to the BLP's last name Kureshi, so there may be a COI involved as well. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really good catch up. Fails WP:GNG. He has not held any provincial or state level post so he fails that too. Fails WP:LAWYER. Greenbörg (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no substantial RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because it is difficult to read through, it initially appears that the subject holds a high ranking official post but on closer inspection this is not the case at all. He is just a lawyer working on a team that is hired by the State of Punjab to assist it in legal representation. Fails WP:BIO. Loopy30 (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete You're inspection skills seems to be doubtful the person is in the official team of attorneys hired by the State of Pakistan by the President of Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.42.27.33 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete You may review it again as all your misconceptions will be removed from the revised layout of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedkureshe (talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Waleedkureshe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't Delete As no further counter arguments are being made the page should be upheld and should be kindly removed from this deletion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedkureshe (talk • contribs)
- Please do not !vote more than once in an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 8 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, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Mir Aali Saleem Akbar Khan Bugti[edit]

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

Though the Bugti are notable, and this man claims to be their chief, there is no information on him from reliable sources. No objection to recreating the article if proper sources are found. Article should not remain in an unsourced condition EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: notability isn't inherited (he's claimed to be the grandson of Akbar Bugti), and a search on Google didn't return a single reliable source independent of the subject, let alone one providing the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG, only Youtube-videos, Facebook-pages, blogs and user-generated sites. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, fails WP:GNG, no substantial RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete simply fails to meet GNG. --Saqib (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet GNG standards. 39.54.50.130 (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Col (r) Mumtaz Malik, Pakistan[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:RFPP for salt requests Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew U. D. Straw[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. To the extent this person has any real encyclopedic notability, it is because of bad press about him, which is mostly local to whatever state he happens to be practicing in at the time. Bbb23 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of many non-notable political candidates/advocates wanting attention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of notability. Subject's political campaigns have not seemed to have brought him to a level that meets our guidelines for notability as a politician. While he has been a lawyer, I haven't seen the in-depth coverage of him indicating that he has had some significant impact. And the political party he started is small enough that it hasn't a Wikipedia page, and I've seen no sign that it's gotten anyone elected to public office. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler: The first part of your last sentence doesn't parse. I think you meant to say that the party is so small it doesn't have a Wikipeda page?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The devil goes through and removes the nots from my postings! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of independent, reliable, secondary sources, with no understanding of what secondary sources are. The article is likely self-authored, and if not, was written by someone with a conflict of interest,[4] who wants to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs. No one is entitled to an article on Wikipedia. Kablammo (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the founder of a minor political party could potentially get him a Wikipedia article if that were the context the sources were covering him in — but as written, this is based on a mix of primary sources that cannot assist notability at all (his campaign committee's standard FEC filing, which doesn't assist notability since every candidate has one), WP:ROUTINE coverage in the context of unsuccessful election candidacies (and not enough of that to make him more notable than the norm on the basis of having received more coverage than every other unsuccessful candidate could always show), and some personal stuff that runs afoul of WP:PERP (criminal or malpractice allegations do not get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves if they weren't already notable enough for an article independently of that.) None of the coverage here is about his role as founder of a political party per se, so he's not entitled to an automatic inclusion freebie on that basis just because it's been claimed — and none of what the media coverage is covering him for constitutes a notability claim at all, nor is any of that coverage contextually far enough beyond the purely local to satisfy WP:GNG on "just because media coverage exists" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is a biography. WP:ROUTINE is a notability guideline for events. The policy for inclusion of sources is WP:Verifiability. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While he may have been pointing to the wrong page, he is reflecting a practiced standard for dealing with notability among politicians, that the basic coverage that is generally given a candidate is not sufficient for notability in itself. You can see this reflected at WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted". --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ROUTINE is not a question of whether the Wikipedia article's subject is a person or an event; it's a question of the context in which the media coverage is being given. Note, for example, that ROUTINE includes examples such as paid-inclusion wedding notices and crime logs and "local person wins local award", which are types of "coverage" that pertain to people. Coverage of people, within the context of events that don't confer notability, does fall under ROUTINE, because ROUTINE is a measure of the context in which the subject's RS-verifiability is occurring, not just of what class of thing the article's base topic is. The notability guideline for "events" does not only speak to the notability or non-notability of an event as a topic of an event article — it does also speak to the inclusion-worthiness of people who were involved in the events, such as the ancient wikiwar about whether Wikipedia should maintain a standalone biography of every individual person who died in the 9/11 attacks just because The New York Times obituaried them all. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think I have ever seen someone so totally not notable. He not only has never won any election, he seems to have never even won a nomination. That would not make him notable, but loosing nominations makes him even less so. In fact, he often doesn't make it to the primary because he can not get enough signatures on a petition. In one case he filled a petition with 1 signature. He is the extreme of non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Losing nominations does not cause someone to become less notable. Your personal opinion of a topic is not what defines Wikipedia notability. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competing for nominations does not cause somebody to become notable in the first place. Sure, losing a nomination contest wouldn't cause a person to become less notable than he already was — Yolande James did not lose her existing notability as a provincial legislator just because she lost a nomination to Emmanuella Lambropoulos when she tried to go federal — but what's lacking here is properly sourced evidence that Straw had any preexisting notability for any other reason in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Not notable and unlikely to become notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree the article should be salted, given the unwillingness by the author to ignore the requirements for acceptable articles. Kablammo (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the striking weakness of the arguments in this AfD, including the indirect evidence that there is sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy GNG, a no consensus close here is still within bounds. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate clearly doesn't meet NPOL, and there's no other case presented for notability. The article describes him as an incompetent lawyer and an incompetent political candidate, and makes no other claims. Power~enwiki (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- lack of reliable independent sourcing beyond the run-of-the-mill coverage that all such low-key unsuccessful candidates get. Reyk _YO! 08:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I generally support retaining all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections out of hand, without regard to size or ideology, I am not persuaded that the so-called Disability Party of this individual is a real thing. Clear SNG - POLITICIAN fail. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems he's most notable for failing to be notable enough to getting on a primary ballot, i.e. he's not notable. I'm 99% sure this was also created by a WP:SPA account, which only seems to edit articles related to this subject (e.g. his own, those judges on his lawsuits, etc) for WP:PROMOTION. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:55, 9 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) 20:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supersonic (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a wide margin. "90-day warranty" is not much for a TV. I would expect at least 12 months. Rentier (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text is oriented towards the company's terms of trade and disposal; while appreciating there may be a public service element in this, it sounds just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL retailer. I am seeing nothing to establish encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I won't argue too hard on this one, the depth of content that I was able to discover online as well as being WP:RS is probably just about what was covered here in this article. However, I would disagree and probably suggest that it's WP:STUB-worthy. One side note that I noticed is that the manufacturer has a pretty good niche for TV's on Amazon and Walmart under 20 inches (from personal observation). I think bringing to light the environmental concerns are important on this, seeing as folks probably aren't considering that when they see a cheapo $150 or less TV and probably do some basic research on the manufacturer before buying. In which case, it's definitely not a company which cares about environmental record, and I'd like to shine some light on it, but definitely is not all that transparent with their practices (no good sources to back up the article). And as an aside, I think it's a little amazing how a company can create a whole supply chain for TVs on Amazon and have virtually no history on itself besides marketing WP:PROMO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaded0 (talk • contribs) 10:38, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

You think that's amazing, look at Symington's, 190 years of operations including some significant impacts on the industry and yet no sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the sources that were cited, I don't see why a Db-g11 wouldn't have been appropriate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP for lack of in-depth coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 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. Hut 8.5 21:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamian British[edit]

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

An article on this topic was deleted after discussion in 2008. There still seems to be a lack of significant coverage of the topic, and the sourced material in this stub (a single population figure) can be better covered at British African-Caribbean people. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, involves a small number of people, and I agree with proposer that it could be added to British African-Caribbean people. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete there are similar pages to this that still remain on Wikipedia without being targeted and secondly Bahamian British is not only Black people. It is ignorant and racist to assume this. CreateBahamas (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. less than 1800 people is not likely to be a notable group on it's own. Best dealt with in the wider topic. I realize not everyone in or from the wonderful country of the Bahamas is black, but nearly all are and we need to have topics that are discussed in RS. Posting at ANi is likely not going to get the support the article creator was looking for. I'd suggest merging material into the larger topic before this gets deleted or turned into a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then let it get deleted, because you have pages with Aruban Americans and other groups that are very small but still exist. If this is going to go and the rest wont then let it be. I have not the time with the nonsense displayed in this community CreateBahamas (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ for now. The page creator is somewhat persuasive here. Looking at the other pages in the Nav box, there is a definite pattern and some useful info in each page. Yes the population is small but we can't expect tons of sources beyond statistics. Perhaps we should consider these pages as a group. If they are not individually suitable, grouping the info together into a bigger page may make some sense. At least this page answers the question - how many Bahamians are in the UK? Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The population figures are already reported in the articles British African-Caribbean people and Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom. Are they the sort of pages that you have in mind, Legacypac? It's worth noting that other AfDs about very small immigrant groups, where there is no material beyond population size, have resulted in deletion. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutian Americans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the Netherlands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch people in France, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrians in France, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croats in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indonesian British, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Dominicans, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Cordless Larry, you are obviously on top of the issue. The fact you nominated some of those pages should satisfy the User:CreateBahamas their page is not being targeted specially. I'd prefer to be a grouped nom of the other similar pages in the nav.box so they can be considered together. I'd support deletion of the group and will mildly support this deletion as a one off since we are here. Legacypac (talk)

I have done grouped AfDs for these types of articles in the past, Legacypac, and the response from commenters has generally been that the articles should be nominated individually. However, that was probably because I wasn't discriminating enough in what I grouped together. I will have another go when I get time. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've done grouped noms and gotten the same reaction. You can't win for trying. Legacypac (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically empty. I think that piecemeal is just fine on these articles, although the arguments are the same. --Bejnar (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notable X + notable Y != notable Z. DrStrauss talk 12:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if we were to do articles on every group of immigrants from one county to another, that would be over 37,000 articles. That being said, if there was something unique and notable about people from the Bahamas living in the UK, you'd expect to see some coverage, which isn't shown here. Even then, this could be a sentence in the Diaspora article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:22, 10 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, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gentile (author)[edit]

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

No indication of notability by our standards. There are several people with this name, and this one does not stand out from the others. The CISO Handbook has 6 citations on Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and just let it be noted that this person's WP biography was put out for tender on the Web so there are probably a few undisclosed COI paid editors editing here one of which has been ideffed. Domdeparis (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Author and Prof and GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 8 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. As with the precedent for bilateral relations articles, most are deleted unless there is an enormous significance to their relations, which has not been demonstrated here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Australia relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. This article is based on primary sources. There is nothing that typically makes notable bilateral relations. No resident embassies, never been any meetings between national leaders. The level of trade at USD 3 million a year is very low. The only thing of note is migration but that is covered in Albanian Australians LibStar (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worthwhile keeping articles that talk about bilat relations ... brings the world closer together :) there is a significant population of Albanians in Australia ... perhaps move Albanian Australians here? I would strongly advocate every country should have a page like this with every other country... it is a good and valuable thing. Hopefully in time it can be filled out ... and if it is light ... perhaps that is the key message! Having said that I put in a note that there has been basically no treaty action between the two countries - so your conclusion is valid ... however my opinion is based on principle ... I don't think 3 bullets cover it. Supcmd (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability of Bilateral articles. Over 100 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Some of these are a waste of space. This one just crosses the line I think. How is this: If there is a consulate or embassy (updated in article, as Albania has 2), if there is an official ministerial visit and photo, if there are treaties (Australia has bilat treaties with only 79 countries or so -not too many), AND if the article is longer than a paragraph then keep the article ...Supcmd (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no, you're just inventing criteria to suit this article. There was a previous proposal for criteria for such articles but it failed to get consensus. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. The coverage is routine. Are there relations between these two countries? Yes. Is that a reason to have an article? No. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Australia was involved in the War in Albania, Australians are buried there. 4000 Albanians were evacuated to Australia. There are lots of ties. I really don't know why people are so keen on deleting these articles, clearly it means something to some people, perhaps there could be more info put in them, I might try myself. Without these "xxx-yyy relations", it is a pain to edit the "foreign relations of ..." articles as you duplicate info after a while. Someone with sense, and I say this humbly, needs to consider that these articles, as mentioned above, that bring the world together are a good thing. Why delete them? Especially like this one - there are enough useful fact that makes it worthwhile.Supcmd (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't supplied any evidence of actual significant coverage. Secondly, you can't use WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL as reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - we now have: 2 treaties, 2 consulates, Mention of Govt of Albania in Federal Court case, 6 soldiers, WWII Albanians in Australia etc. I think this is a better article now. Thanks for highlighting.Supcmd (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

they're not full consulates. 27000 Australians died in WWII so these 6 that died represent 0.02% of the deaths. LibStar (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary consuls have much lower status than proper consuls. http://www.hunconsulate.com/faq/honorary-career-consul-difference.html LibStar (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where does it say they are not full consulates? They are fully accredited consulates-general, and appropriately recognised in accordance with the Vienna convention. Albania is .03% of the world, and the soldiers account for about 10% of soldiers listed in Tirana, so the numbers are proportionally significant. Supcmd (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

since you like to talk about proportionally significant. Bilateral trade is USD3 million. Australia's total trade is USD390 billion, so trade with Albania represents a very insignificant 0.0007%. LibStar (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary consuls have limited authorization to act and conduct on behalf of their native country and they usually do not have diplomatic passports, do not enjoy diplomatic immunity and do not have preferential tax treatment. LibStar (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Career consuls are authorized to basically conduct all kind of diplomatic matters and services. They are holders of diplomatic passports, do enjoy diplomatic immunity and do have preferential tax treatment in their accredited countries. There is a big difference. LibStar (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the deaths account for 0.02% of all Australians fighting in WWII, please tell me 0.02% is actually significant. If there was an election and someone got 0.02% vote that would be considered very insignificant. LibStar (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment there aren't even 2 treaties. The second is actually an exchange of notes recognising the original treaty about the same thing. So there is actually only one treaty. You're clutching at straws. LibStar (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

now the article is being padded out with visa details... we don't include these in bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case is strong - this is a valuable article now, and would be deemed so in the assessment of a reasonable reader, and recommend the deletion request be removed. It lists 2 fully accredited consulates, visa information, state ministerial visits, world war 2 and soldiers lost (accounting for 10% of graves/memorials in Tirana the main allied war cemetery there), a court case in the Federal court involving the Albanian Government, covering the extradition of an Albanian prisoner, Australia's assistance with the refugee situation in Albania. If this is not a significant article then we would end up deleting most of Wikipedia ... Supcmd (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

let's see it:

no embassies but 2 Honorary' consulates that do not have full diplomatic status. If it was so important why doesn't Australia set up an embassy?
level of trade is 0.0007% of Australia's total trade. In other words if trade ended tomorrow it would have no noticeable effect on the Australian economy.
No visits ever between national leaders
only one treaty
the Australian federal court deals with hundreds of cases a year with foreign citizens . It's hardly majorly adding to relations
0.02% of all Australians killed in WWII were killed in Albania. Statistically very small.
visa information adds zero to notability. You either need or don't need visa to visit a country.

LibStar (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have participated in several hundred bilateral AfDs. All the ones that have been kept have at least one full embassy posted from another country. The only exception is if hostile relations like north Korea and usa. LibStar (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

honorary consuls do not have full diplomatic powers. The Albanian Ambassador to China in beijing has been accredited to Australia. LibStar (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extraditions are rare - and foreign govts in the Federal Courts - rarer. If you google the case, it made almost every major News site in Australia.Supcmd (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia extradites people regularly. Especially new Zealanders. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why do you still claim there are treaties plural when then is only one? How does visa information add to notability? LibStar (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Albanian Australians is a notable topic, and rightly has an article. There is no evidence that the broader relationship between Australia and Albania is notable. Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and also we should note that simply listing dead servicemen does not add to notability which you have correctly removed . LibStar (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - Australia did not play any significant part in the fighting in Albania during World War II (Australia's contribution to the air war over the Balkans was limited to Australians posted to British units, and occasional strikes by the two Australian fighter squadrons stationed in Italy - both groups were operating under British control, with the Australian Government having virtually no say in how they were used). As for this content, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission provides similar, and superior, information in its excellent online database. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do agree that many bilateral relations articles are not worth keeping, but the premise for nominating this one is flawed. There are many bilateral relations articles that are well worth keeping where the countries have not exchanged emissaries and indeed where even there are no formal diplomatic relations, and minimal trade. For example, I doubt anyone would suggest that US-Cuba relations or UK-North Korean relations were not notable before they re-established ambassadorial relations. Deleting this on that basis sets a bad precedent. Bilateral articles should be deleted where the two countries basically have nothing to do with one another, and I think this particular case makes it over the line from that base level. In fact, as a diverse, multicultural, liberal immigrant nation, for Australia people-to-people contacts are a hugely significant part of its external relations, and I would suggest that as a rule of thumb Australia's relations with any country which has contributed a substantial number of immigrants to Australia is prima facie notable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

consensus is well established that hostile relations are notable for bilateral articles. In this case the only aspect of note is already covered in Albanian Australians. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral articles should be deleted where the two countries basically have nothing to do with one another no you're inventing your own criteria. Having some relations does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems very thin, and reminds me of the discussion for Bahamian British, also under deletion review. There would be over 37,000 articles if we tried to pair every country up, and without significant evidence that relations are covered with any regularity in the press, this fails WP:GNG. Also should look at this one. Albania–Australia bilateral treaties. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a world where we are so close to war, where countries are are holding animosity to others, these Wikipedia articles are amongst the most important pieces on the Internet, I feel. It draws countries together through showing the cooperation, shared history etc. 1 graveyard with Australian war veterans is a small bit of history. But it shows the respect for Albanians to Australians after they fought in war. I agree 37,000 is a lot - but hopefully we are no where near that number. I agree with notability guidelines. This article, to a reasonable reader has points of note. Nowhere on the Internet will you find all this information in one place. The extradition case as described above, for example could make its own article (an escaped convict made a life in Australia and claimed mistaken identity), but is better served here (as the Australian, Albanian govts worked together in the Australian Federal court). There is a very good reason why there is no consensus on criteria for deleting these articles. Because not everyone agrees in the wholesale purge of these articles. Maybe in 50 years there will be lots of these. Hopefully by then we will have cheaper storage and better indexing, but for now keep it, because in 50 years it will eventually find its way back in, with more and more notability. We are moving to a world of more information not less. If there are debates on content, save them for the article not the delete page.Supcmd (talk) 21:43, 10 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. If the sources cited as evidence of notability are not in fact independent... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New England Traverse[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No evidence found of the notability of this trail. No independent sources found that use the name. John Fox put a route together out of several existing trails and decided to call it the New England Traverse. See the discussion of a talk about that says "Mr. Fox discussed his self-devised route consisting of the Appalachian Trail, the Long Trail and the Long Path" https://www.facebook.com/events/1391455547789631/. The two sources in the article consist of a magazine article by Mr Fox, and a blog posting by Mr Fox. Very likely a COI article since it was created by an SPA who is only interested in John Fox and the trail. Meters (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Article is referenced by multiple third party independent sources and is in no way in violation of a COI. "A Self Devised Route" has no bearing on the justification of the third party references and sources. Furthermore this page is about a trail and not about any individual or group of individuals. Member who proposed AFD has made continual disruptive edits to the authors page(s) in the past and has posted authors deletions on their personal page. This is in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If an administrator would please remove the delete notice it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Climber5678 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: User:Climber5678 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Climber5678 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. My mistake. Article was created by User:Climber5583 but editing is now by User:Climber5678 Meters (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome anyone to look at my edits. I made exactly one edit to this article before taking it to AFD. I added the name of the author to a ref [5] Meters (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artificial notion of a hiking trail combining parts of three notable trails was created by John Fox, and the two references in the article were written by John Fox. Therefore, the references are not independent, and the topic is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen's good reasoning. Not notable. Further the route is an invention and someone's using wikipedia to try to substantiate it, which almost calls for a speedy delete under A11. --Lockley (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated in response. Both referenced sources are independent third party publications both in print and online. --Climber5678

They are not independent. One is an article written by John Fox, and the other is a trip report blog by John Fox describing his route/hike. Meters (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in independent RS. I did find a New England traverse "seismic traverse" in a book on mountain tectonics, but that is something else. MB 05:05, 5 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 12:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Elliott (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. His band Trafik aren't particularly famous, and Elliott himself as a musician even less so. Richard3120 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- run-of-the mill musician. Non notable and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 10 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 12:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trafik (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - the name does seem to ring a bell. Vorbee (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any sources. No listings on GNews, HighBeam, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:50, 10 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 George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews#Marriage and children. So Why 08:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no claim to notability is made in the article. Also nominating the following article (Lord Downpatrick's sister) for the same reasons:

Notability is not inherited, we don't have articles for every great-great-grandchild of a king. Marvello123 (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to fail WP:GNG but while considering a redirect, I'm not sure if his father George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews is notable either - that's purely a courtesy title as George's father Prince Edward, Duke of Kent is the actual hereditary earl (the duke is notable). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula: The Earl of St Andrews seems to have done more than just exist – he's a university chancellor and seems to have done a bit of charity work – so I'm not completely confident in nominating him for deletion. However I have discovered that Edward Windsor's equally non-notable sister Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor also has an article, which I've attached to this nomination. Marvello123 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to George_Windsor,_Earl_of_St_Andrews#Marriage_and_children. Children who don't meet notability standards should have any encyclopedic merged to that of their notable relative, usually a parent for nobility. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both Edward and Marina to George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews as already discussed. Two children who have no more than the media coverage you'd expect for relatives of minor royals. They haven't done anything out of the ordinary themselves, and the only point of interest is their religion, which doesn't require separate articles; it's already discussed in the articles on the line of the succession. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I won't oppose a merger if that is the consensus. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor at least. A quick google suggests that articles about her have been published in The Telegraph and Tatler (at least ~~twice~~ once; there's a coming-out-type article in 2010 ~~and a cover story in 2016~~; sorry for the DM links); hardly mere gossip sites. I do think that these articles should have been nominated separately. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, muddling my royals. Her sister Amelia does seem to be a little better known, but I do support retaining this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Outcome seems to be leaning towards merging the Edward Windsor article, but the consensus on whether to merge Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor to me is still unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin 02:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both, and turn current links into redirects. If in the future more sources can be found to document notability, all we have to do is tap the rollback button on the inidividual articles and update the article. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:25, 5 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. Sandstein 07:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonner Strassenbahn ROSWINDIS[edit]

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

Unremarkable individual locomotive. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cöln-Frechener Strassenbahn BENZELRATH _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this being discussed here: https://www.drehscheibe-online.de/foren/read.php?17,4264616 I'm not into locomotives, so I cannot comment much on notability, but apparently there are some folks out there who do find it historically notable enough to still discuss the topic. Given that interests are diverse and Wikipedia is for anyone, not just Joe Average, and because I find it important to preserve reliable information about historical topics (there's a lot that can be learnt from them also for present and future topics), and because there is clearly no commercial interest in such topics, I tend to suggest to keep rather than delete such topics. Actually, this also applies to the already deleted Cöln-Frechener Strassenbahn BENZELRATH topic for which Google turns up quite a few hits. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:59, 9 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. So Why 08:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:GNG. References included don't seem to relate to this article's subject. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any non trivial reliable sources on the subject. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search did not turn up much in terms of reliable sources. —MRD 20 14 15:43, 2 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BB Ki vines[edit]

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

Nearly incomprehensible article about non-notable blogger. Not every blogger is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is worth a closer look from someone familiar with the challenges of sourcing Indian content. 400,000,000+ views and 3.3 million subscribers strongly suggests that there's something going on here. Sources now included in the article support the existence of a large following and lasting impact. This article describes him as "India's fastest growing YouTube star" who is surrounded by fans when he goes to Starbucks, and it quotes Tanmay Bhat of All India Bakchod as saying he's "making a killing" because of the low cost of production on his videos. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I hadn't seen the !vote above, I would have speedied as a test page. Notable or not, there isn't even enough for a draft here, let alone an article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It did look like a test page. I've reverted it back so that it's at least readable. The article seems like it's been a recurring target of test-edits and other problems. BB Ki Vines is create-protected, and if this is kept (which is a big if), the article should probably be moved to Bhuvan Bham anyway. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hindustan Times says Bhuvan Bam is a household name in the country of 1.3 billion. [6] His youtube channel 'BB Ki Vines' was awarded most popular channel award at WebTV Asia Awards 2016,[7] so might be among the most popular onlines faces in Asia (if not the most popular). He is India's most subscribed youtuber,[8] and also the most fastest growing (mentioned above by User:Grayfell). Many articles/interviews of him are present online HT 1, HT 2, India Today and many more, enough to pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrunisa V Lub U[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines. This film is unreleased, although its production has been completed. A film that has not yet been released is only considered notable if its production is itself notable. There is nothing in this article that indicates that the production is notable. Therefore this article is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This film has released in Pakistan. Here are some reviews.
The News International

The Express Tribune

Dawn

Some coverage on the film's box-office performance:

Daily Pakistan

These are sufficient for WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NFP ([9], [10], [11], [12]) and the film has been released. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GNG and NFILM now meet, and I would suggest that Robert withdraw his AFD because BEFORE has failed. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 03:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I mostly agree now. At this point, it needs tagging rather than deleting. As the article now stands, it still doesn't satisfy film notability, but can be fixed with the addition of Pakistani film reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Films passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Pratyush (talk)

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

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

The result was Move to August 1942 Dunbeath Air Crash. Pinging @Exemplo347 as requested. I'll leave the moving etc. to you. So Why 08:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jack (RAF Sergeant)[edit]

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

WP:GNG not notable in itself, this article could be altered to create the accident article for the aircraft, which IS notable, due to the Duke of Kent being one of the caualties Petebutt (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (that is to say, move) to an article about the accident itself, adjusting the content to reflect this. WP:SOLDIER, while only an essay, is a very sensible approach to take that prevents Wikipedia from being over-populated by biographies of non-notable members of the world's military bodies. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jack is not really noteworthy for a stand-alone article, also oppose an article on the accident as this has recently been created and then redirected to Prince George, Duke of Kent where the notability lies and already deals with the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the Nominator, I second Milbornes solution for re-direct to the Duke of York article, which already has fair coverage of the crash.--Petebutt (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to August 1942 Dunbeath Air Crash (or similar). As the article seems to be mostly about the crash, which is notable in its own right per WP:AIRCRASH] and the amount of detail would be WP:UNDUE in the Prince George, Duke of Kent, article, I would suggest transforming it into an article about the crash. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the AfD closes with a consensus for what we've suggested (the move & content adjustment) then I'd appreciate a ping from the closing Admin because I don't think it'd take me a lot of effort to make the appropriate changes. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am endorsing this solution, per Icewhiz, which I believe is in line with WP:PRESERVE, as the crash passes WP:AIRCRASH Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no WP:GNG.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article; can be mentioned in article on 228 Squadron. Kierzek (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN NCO/junior officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to August 1942 Dunbeath Air Crash (or similar). Remove most Andrew Jack material (which as it is - is not the major part of the article), while mentioning he was the sole survivor, add air-crash template instead of bio. The crash itself was highly notable - and the article as it is is essentially about the crash and not Jack.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable jr officer. There's no need for a move as the incident is not sufficiently notable either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse view that the crash is sufficiently notable and the material would be well suited to an article about it. I am not sure Jack himself is notable, but I think in cases like this WP:PRESERVE supports not deleting but suggests a number of alternatives (as Andrew D. suggests). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and trim to August 1942 Dunbeath air crash (or similar) per Hawkeye7. The incident is clearly notable because there will be plenty of reliable sources about it because the Duke of Kent was killed in the crash. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as the crash is notable, but keep the details of the lone survivor. It's only a short article so there is no need to trim. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable may add to existing articles on 228 Squadron. Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the recommendation to Rename to August 1942 Dunbeath Air Crash (or similar). Not a huge event, perhaps, and my read of AIRCRASH indicates that essay is not policy and should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it being recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Nonetheless, there are interesting aspects of who was on the plane, of a possible cover up of the duke being at the pilot's position, the intrigue of the duke possibly being bisexual and drug-using, a possible mysterious unknown person aboard who was possibly unauthorized, the mystery of what was the "special mission", a lone survivor, and a physically substantial Celtic cross memorial marking the crash site on the moor. It would be an utter shame to delete. Dioldo (talk) 00:30, 10 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 08:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Flash[edit]

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

A over the top mess of promotion, original research and dud sources. Non notable DJ. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claimed chart for Hudson is not a goodchart and not for him. Charting for Dr. Dre is for Dr. Dre, not DJ Flash. Sourcing is a bunch of self published (sites.google, angelfire, facebook) and shops. None are independent reliable sources that contain any depth of coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COuld not find enough articles that were actualy about him, as opposed to passing mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep West Coast Rap Pioneer, Old School Hip Hop Recording Artist, Record Producer For Snoop Dogg, E-40, Too Short & West Coast Hip Hop Hall Of Fame inductee yr 2008. Wiki-dos808 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 7 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity (Russian band)[edit]

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

Page flagged for deletion due to lack of notability Samfov (talk) 13:17, 16 June 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 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 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. So Why 08:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Master Locksmiths Association[edit]

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

promotional article written and maintained by COI editors. The article is primarily devoted to advertising the reasons why you should hire someone with thier certification DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam & WP:ADVOCACY. This content belongs on the org's web site, not here. Industry associations are almost never notable; could we have a "speedy delete" for those? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just cleaned up the article somewhat, and it seems much less like blatant spam now (to me, at least). With these changes, I think it can now serve the useful purpose of providing basic information to readers about this organisation. However, I believe it still fails WP:GNG and retains (relatively faint) traces of having been written as promotional advertising, and the activity of the organisation itself seems to include a substantially promotional element. The organisation's website prominently features a referral program that directs consumers to its members and promotes their services. With about 1400 individual members and 350 member companies, the organisation is not especially large or prominent, but it may indeed be – as one minister put it – the "principal trade body representing locksmiths and promoting standards within the industry" in the UK. That does seem fairly important, as I would personally like to know that the person I hire to be responsible for the security of my home or company has some kind of certification. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At its current state it does not seem to be overly promotional. It seems to pass WP:GNG by the minister's statement and other minor mentions. The main contributors have an obvious WP:COI, but that does not necessarily make the article delete worthy. --Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have further edited the article. Please see the current version. Those "other minor mentions" have been removed, because the article seemed to be mischaracterising the content of the cited sources. I have commented at length about that issue on the article's Talk page. Currently, the only third-party source cited in the article is that minister's quote. (This does not mean that I think the article should be deleted; I just said this since you seem to have based your assessment on some parts of the article that were misleading or incorrect.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above, looks better after clean up.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:ORG, no company or group has inherent notability, and I'm honestly not seeing much to lift this above the critical threshold. Recent editors have done a creditable job cleaning up the page, and it doesn't contain much promotional content anymore, but there still aren't enough independent secondary sources to prove that the Master Locksmiths Association is notable. It would be a good idea to mention them in articles on locksmithing, or even on Maria Eagle's page (not by itself, but maybe if her speech is important). An independent article by itself? I don't think so. RexSueciae (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks much better after cleanup, no more stench of WP:PROMOTION. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ORGDEPTH. My own searching failed to find a single WP:RS which was more than a routine mention. Nothing that even came close to the depth of coverage we require for organizations. The sources that others have presented certainly prove that it meets WP:V, but that's not enough. It also has to meet WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the current state this seems ok. If there is no government regulation of the profession in the UK an association formed in 1958 is the defacto regulating body. I think it serves the reader now. Legacypac (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the prime trade body for its field within the UK. That's well sourced, and even recognised in the Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 7 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. Ignoring the non-policy WP:TNT arguments, we have one !vote that amounts to "not notable" and two !voters who argue that this is a notable musician and that the article can be fixed. Since even the nominator admits that this can be recreated, I don't see a convincing rationale for deletion. So Why 08:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David G Smith[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC aren't strong enough to withstand everything that's wrong with the article. Overall this is very strongly dependent on YouTube videos, primary sources and blogs that cannot assist notability (there was also some WP:CIRCULAR referencing to other Wikipedia articles, although I've already stripped that) — and while there is some reliable sourcing sprinkled in amid the junk, by far the majority of it is purely local coverage in either his original hometown or the city where he's based now, not successfully demonstrating that he's known much beyond the purely local scene. Chart success is on a non-IFPI certified WP:BADCHART, not on one that can confer notability per NMUSIC #2; appearing on local television stations in his own home television market does not assist passage of #12; placing a song in a TV show does not satisfy #10 if your source for that is a YouTube clip of the scene itself, and not a reliable source writing about the appearance; going "viral" within a youth organization's internal membership community is not a notability claim if the only source for that is a member's own blog post; and on and so forth. And for added bonus, the creator — an SPA who's never worked on anything but this, thus suggesting a possible conflict of interest when you combine that fact with how blatantly advertorialized the content is — started it in draftspace and then copied and pasted it directly into mainspace without ever submitting it for WP:AFC review, which is not how draftspace works. There's simply no way that any AFC reviewer worth their salt would ever have let this through without demanding a major scrubdown for tone and a significant sourcing overhaul.

No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but the principle of WP:TNT pertains here — even if he could be properly shown to clear NMUSIC, this isn't the article or the sourcing that gets him there. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete On balance, not notable enough for Wikipedia. Doesn't pass criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Darx9url (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Horrible semi-promotional tone, but fixing this is an editing matter; sufficient sources showing in the footnotes to pass GNG. Subject is covered substantially in multiple, independently-published sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly point out which sources are sufficient to pass GNG, because I sure as hell ain't seeing 'em. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The published newspaper pieces by Hancock and Cooper showing in the footnotes, for starters. Did you sure as hell go through the footnotes before running a Google search of this impossible-to-winnow common name? Carrite (talk) 16:30, 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 00:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a draft for the same guy as well, Draft:David_G._Smith, but hasn't been edited in 4 months. We should move the page to include the . after the middle name. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found news articles about without having to take pointers from the included refs. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.Apply TNT.Winged Blades^Godric 14:58, 8 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. No consensus (or discussion) on the redirect, so I'm not going to create it. If somebody else feels the redirect is warranted, they're free to go ahead and create it on their own. I don't see anything here worth merging (it's just an info box). -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McAuley Catholic Primary School[edit]

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

No text and no references. No credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that primary schools are not usually found to be notable is not relevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A3, and I've marked it as such. The traditional exception to speedy deletion for schools only applies to A7. And sorry, if this were a needed AfD, the usual arguement that elementary (better put as non diploma granting, as elementary school means different things in different countries) schools are not usually kept is a very valid arguement. John from Idegon (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you, but the A3 was just declined. I have proposed an A13 for infobox-only articles with no text and no references, but I don't think that there is consensus for that. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- primary schools are not included in School Outcomes (as I understand), and there's nothing here to go by. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rose_Bay,_New_South_Wales#Educational_facilities_and_history. Mentioned there. Regards So Why 08:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, if a few others have their say. Either way, there's insufficient material for article space. — fortunavelut luna 10:55, 10 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 Flanaess. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Nomads[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style". There's nothing to merge as the article does not include 3rd party citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not so. Primary sources can verify, but not demonstrate notability of a topic. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of many fictional subdivisions of fictional settings for D&D. It is trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Flanaess. This is just a more specific page on a more broad topic that is notable, so I don't see why I should favor deletion over merging. Also, deletion is not a cleanup. Borderlandor (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable. insufficient for separate article. perhaps a redirect to Flanaess. Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be a strong consensus that this article needs to go. A bit more clarity on exactly how would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:01, 2 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Griogair mac Ailpín[edit]

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

Non-notable, unhistorical figure derived from unreliable internet family trees. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No son of Alpín by this name is mentioned in A Woolf's From Pictland to Alba. Same with MO Anderson's ODNB bio of Cináed mac Ailpín; B Hudson's Celtic Kings of Scotland; and AP Smyth's Warlords and Holymen. As far as I can see, the only sons attributed to Ailpín by reliable sources are Cináed and Domnall. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no verifiability, no notability, probably no reality. Agricolae (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more digging. Although the page only quotes internet pedigrees that are dramatically bad, this is not a modern creation. Rather, it is a manifestation of the foundation legend of the Clan MacGregor. (see, for example, Douglas' Baronage of Scotland, pub. 1790 [13]) The Celtic Monthly published a letter from a researcher in 1906 that concluded, "There is no proof now extant that the MacGregors were descended from the Alpin line through Prince Gregor, third son of Alpin and brother to Kenneth MacAlpin, or that there ever was a Prince Gregor."[14] Basically, just a genealogical construct invented at some point in the distant past to link Clan MacGregor to Scottish royalty. What does this mean for the discussion here? The page still needs to go away, but perhaps a redirect to Clan Gregor is a viable alternative to deletion. Agricolae (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources are not RS; not clear if this meets WP:V to begin with, while notability is marginal, if any. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, I too can't find any good sources and think this fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Every sentence in the article has "may" in it, which suggests that the sources are speculating. Of course if we can get some better sources, I will reconsider this. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 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, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fast food restaurant chains in Albania[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, and I can't understand what value this brings to the project. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN, there is no justification for this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say the same for all "List of ..." articles. Otherwise, why do we need the categories. -Mondiad (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CLN. Lists and categories are complementary and both can exist. But this does seem very short particularly if the redlinked entries were deleted (is there any evidence that they might be notable?). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even the single blue link is directly contradicted by the source in the article - it basically says that there's no KFC restaurants in Albania, just a poor copy called "AFC". Exemplo347 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fast food restaurant chains in Serbia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of notable list entries. The only list entry which does have an article is an international chain. Ajf773 (talk) 11:28, 3 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.